Major issues / Concerns about Megasite Proposal and Roads
1. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow I-3 zoning for this property – this would be a huge unjustified “Spot Zoning” project, unprecedented in Chesterfield
2. Chesterfield Zoning Ordinance strongly recommends that no I-3 zoning be placed adjacent to residential
3. 41,000 residents within a five mile radius of the proposed megasite per Greater Richmond Partnership (GRP)
4. GRP states there is no existing megasite with anywhere close to the population density surrounding this proposed site (next closest density is 17,000 – with a non-comparable site) At April 10 EDA community meeting, Rob Shinn announced that the study's author (Matherly) had cited additional megasites with higher residential density - we have requested this information from Mr. Shinn.
5. Concerns about traffic (road/rail) and environmental impacts in case of accident, noise. EDA offers no solid evidence of project’s “positives” – only glowing description of unspecified high-tech advanced manufacturing firm as clean, noiseless, etc.
6. Proposed Rail Line through existing residential neighborhoods – never part of the Comprehensive Plan
7. Relocation of Harrowgate Elementary School into existing Harrowgate Park (no released plans for replacing the park)
8. Proposed E-W Freeway and Rail Line near existing Carver Middle School and “new” Harrowgate Elementary – safety concerns not addressed
9. E-W Road approval should be pursued BEFORE the I-3 rezoning case. If the E-W Freeway Route and ROW acquisition is not approved or funded by Board of Supervisors, VDOT, or State /Federal entities PRIOR TO the zoning case – could end up with 1675 acres rezoned to I-3 in the middle of residential, with no way to get to or service it (ex. Route 460 failure after $300 Million loss due to Army Corp. of Engineers rejection).
10. No existing “supply chain” industries identified in this area for the potential end user (ref. Tennessee and North Carolina loss of Mazda-Toyota to Alabama)
11.Water supply concerns – where will the water come from?
12.Tranlin site could be used for high tech industry in existing County Technology Zone (Concern – Why was the “Goliath” warehouse with 100 warehouse employees on 40 acres there fast-tracked by the County? Does not appear to be a “Goliath” high-tech company with high paying jobs.)
13. Using public funds and resources to benefit private entities and industries (Shoosmith and proposed end users)
14. Would this site be “certified”? Specific criteria required – site certification is needed to attract serious end-users, including completion of significant infrastructure. EDA has wavered on paying for infrastructure before they land an end user. EDA plans are not clear.
15. Upcoming Public meetings not being publicized meaningfully. 6,000 mailers were sent by the County and EDA for the initial four meetings last year – None planned for the upcoming three community meetings April 11, 12, & 16?
16. Still no meaningful timeline published for either the Megasite or E-W Freeway / Rail project
17. Failed Tranlin VEDP State initiative after much hype, three years, and $5 Million loss to taxpayers, does not give a good comfort level to citizens – VEDP is fully endorsing the Megasite – VEDP was responsible for Tranlin
18. Negative effect of high population density on potential user’s decision to locate here – high population density could result in a high level of complaints (noise, odors, environmental) from residential neighbors
19. Hiring of Capital Results public relations firm ($100,000+ since Sept. 2017) to control, manage media and reports on this project, focusing on business community support (Chester Business Assn., ChamberRVA, etc.) instead of informing residential citizens. Continued unrealistic EDA presentations with only the “rosy” picture of complete success.
20.No end user identified. Speculative venture.
21.What happens when no big, high-tech user comes? No backup plan has been presented.
22.Existing homeowners are affected throughout the process – Homebuyers fear of the unknown, fear of industrial sites, fear of major Freeway and Rail Line – all affect home values and the ability to sell.
Release of Rezoning Application, “Studies”, and Documents – March 9, 2018 to date
23. Change from a 1000-1100 acre buffer (six months of public presentations) to a 100-300 foot wide perimeter buffer, equating to approx. 250-300 total acres of buffer
24. Change from a single “pad” for one I-3 user to five tracts for development on the site
25. Timmons completed studies and has managed entire process – close ties to Chesterfield, including engineering for the Megasite & E-W Freeway – Objectivity concerns
26. Very limited background data and sources for conclusions drawn – “stretching out” and using data averages to reach pre-determined conclusions (ex. : Richmond Association of Realtors study of home values, Mangum study)
27. Assumptions used are not consistent with reality (ex.: TIA and economic impact study)
28. Missing Business Model. Financial Risk/Cost vs. Rewards analysis? This analysis has been requested of Dr. Casey, County Administrator
Proffers document changed 2 days prior to first Community Meeting conducted by EDA. Why are there so many changes when the EDA had since September 2017 to offer application documents that best reflected the EDA's intentions?
Initial Information from August 31, 2017 through March 2018
29.The name “Matoaca” Megasite – misled (and continues to mislead) the Public
30.Secrecy for 12+ months prior to announcement August 31, 2017
31. Governor McAuliffe announced - but it's not a State project
32. Initial Community meetings designed as a “Science Fair” presentation – Public demand made them change
33. No meaningful answers to basic questions at Community meetings in September/October, 2017
34.Studies not released for public review until March 2018 (6 months later)
35. Separation of E-W Freeway / Rail project from the Megasite project – even though the Megasite is totally dependent on the Freeway/Rail
36. No timeline for either project, despite repeated requests
37. Funding not identified / secured. County finance says County will have to borrow $15.5 million for land acquisition.
38. Option extension on Megasite property signed by Garrett Hart, Director, Chesterfield Economic Development Department without written authorization by the EDA
EDA Operations
39.No representation on EDA Board for the Bermuda District
40.County criteria for appointing EDA Board members.
41. No EDA direct contact person for the public.
42. Short monthly meetings (last only 3 to 25 minutes since BARD started attending)
43. No Public comment period during monthly meetings.
44. Very little meaningful discussion of projects during monthly meetings.
45. The appearance that the EDA is a “rubber stamp” for Chesterfield Economic Development department projects
EDA - Additional BARD Concerns: Meadowville Technology Park
46. Changed from “Bio-Tech Park” to “distribution, low tech, warehouse” and some small IT uses – example: Amazon, Medline.
47. Continuing major traffic problems – I-295 interchange did not solve
48. $32.4 Million Chesterfield Utilities “loan” to EDA.
49. Questionable legality of Meadowville documents signed by Garrett Hart, Director, Chesterfield Economic Development Department without written authorization by the EDA
50. Meadowville still not profitable
Posted Thursday, April 12, 2018