Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Windsor residents and Town Council members at the council’s Tuesday, Feb. 11, meeting discussed the lower-density version of the Tidewater Logistics Center (TLC) multi-warehouse complex proposed for the outskirts of Windsor that recently received a blessing from the Isle of Wight County Planning Commission by a 4-3 vote.

Five members of the public spoke at the Feb. 11 Town Council meeting and one communicated to the council via email. All six Windsor residents expressed opposition to the TLC.

Multiple council members discussed details related to a proposed 14.9-acre public park adjacent to the Lovers Lane/Keaton Avenue neighborhood that is part of the revised TLC concept plan.

An earlier version of the conceptual plan, which the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 last year to reject, had called for five warehouses totaling 1.2 million square feet that would be just to the east of Windsor.

As Staff Reporter Stephen Faleski has previously reported, Isle of Wight’s Economic Development Authority remains under contract to sell an EDA-owned 83-acre parcel fronting the four-lane U.S. Route 460 to Meridian Property Purchaser LLC, a subsidiary of the project’s Bethesda, Maryland-based developer, The Meridian Group.

Faleski noted that the county’s Planning Commission split 4-3 in January to recommend approval of a revised application by Meridian to rezone 154 acres of farmland and forestry for industrial use. The plan shows four warehouses totaling 726,000 square feet and a 14.9-acre public park in place of what would have been the fifth warehouse. The acreage includes the EDA-owned land and two non-EDA parcels owned by Hollowell Holdings LLC.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

During the Public Comment period of the Windsor Town Council’s Feb. 11 meeting, Ron Trager, who lives on Lovers Lane, spoke first, sharing his concerns about the TLC’s potential impact on property values, noise, smell and traffic.

“According to Kimley-Horn, they expect 2,349 trucks a day in and out of this warehouse complex,” he said.

He noted that the expected peak in the morning would be 228 trucks in an hour, and the expected peak in the evening would be 246 trucks in an hour.

Trager indicated that he believed the traffic study significantly underestimated the impact that the TLC will have.

“I don’t believe their traffic study,” he said.

Loren Pantschychak, who lives on Keaton Avenue, urged council members to think about the homes of Windsor residents in the neighborhoods that would be adjacent to the TLC.

“These are our homes, these are our memories, and just like the gentleman said about our property value, everybody’s so worried about the Port of Virginia and their bottom line, what happens when we try to sell our homes?” she said. “We can’t get paid for the sentimental value. We lose some of the value out of our homes.”

She said she agrees with change but only if it benefits everyone.

Rick Darden, of Lovers Lane, said the TLC project is not suited for the proposed property.

“I doubt that there’s anybody sitting on this council, the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, EDA, anybody (who) would want this project next to their home,” he said. “This project really is no benefit to the town. There’s going to be some money brought in for food or whatever, but our real estate values, property, that’s going to affect the town in a negative impact.”

He concluded by saying, “I just hope you’ll go with the people in opposition to this project to support the citizens.”

James J. Villers Jr., of Keaton Avenue, said he was very disappointed by the conflicting positions of town representatives shared at the recent county Planning Commission meeting, which included a public hearing on the revised TLC concept plan. 

Faleski reported that during the hearing, there were 17 speakers, with seven expressing support for the TLC, including Windsor Mayor George Stubbs. Having opposed the TLC in its original form, Stubbs cited concept plan changes made by the developer as having earned his approval.

Meanwhile, Councilman Marlin W. Sharp spoke at the hearing in opposition to the project, and Councilman David Adams sent an email to the Planning Commission expressing his opposition.

“Unfortunately, from everything I followed along with this, there was no need for anyone to step up for the project, in all honesty,” Villers said. “If you truly feel like that’s the best thing against what the citizens need, at least give us some decency. But I was very disappointed in the representation of the town at that meeting as it did not look professional.”

Villers concluded his comment by noting that every vote the Town Council has had on the TLC has been against the project.

Glyn Willis, of Lovers Lane, was the last to speak during the Feb. 11 Town Council meeting’s Public Comment period, and he said, “I also share, similar to Jim (Villers), my confusion from the county Planning Commission public hearing on Jan. 28 where it seemed that the town was saying that they supported the project, but my recollection was that there had been two votes by the Town Council indicating that the Town Council was in opposition. I appreciate any clarity that you might provide on this.”

At the Town Council’s Dec. 10 meeting, Sharp encouraged the council to approach the county and ask if another option aside from the TLC could be considered or discussed.

Windsor Vice Mayor J. Randy Carr said, “But on the other side of that, Marlin, if we went in as a council to go and talk with the county, all of us have got to be on the same page in agreeance with something, and I don’t think that’s where we are.”

COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL

Later during the Feb. 11 council meeting came the Council Comments agenda item, during which Sharp had a question about a statement that Stubbs made during the Jan. 28 county Planning Commission meeting. 

During that meeting’s public hearing pertaining to the revised TLC, Stubbs said, “When the developer was asked at a council meeting about including a park, a walking way … he said, ‘We’ll look at it and see what we can do.’ It’s been included, and as a result of that, now I have been asked if the town of Windsor would be willing to take over the upkeep and maintenance of that park. I have spoken with (Meridian Senior Vice President) Mr. (Tom) Boylan, I have talked with my town manager, and there’s a couple things that we’d have to work out from that, but the consensus is, yes, the town would be willing to accept the upkeep and responsibility once we work out some things.”

At the Feb. 11 council meeting, Sharp said, “I’m not sure if I missed something, but I don’t recall that being discussed at this level. Is that something we should be discussing, or is that decision made at another level?”

Stubbs replied by describing the series of conversations that led up to his Jan. 28 statement. Part of the series included an interaction with two members of the county’s Planning Commission who asked him if Windsor would be willing to take on the park for upkeep and maintenance. He said he told them he could not tell them whether the town would be interested in that or not.

“That would be something that would take some negotiation if and when TLC was approved with some things that would have to be worked out,” he said.

Stubbs then recounted having talked to Windsor’s town manager and a couple Town Council members, and it was determined that a negotiation would have to be worked out.

Stubbs recalled that at a Sept. 26 town hall meeting at the Windsor Town Center, it was stated that the relevant property would be maintained by the developer for upkeep, maintenance, lawn care, etc. until it was possibly built out, sold out and turned over to an HOA.

Stubbs said that what he stated at the Jan. 28 commission meeting was that there would be need for additional negotiations with either the developer or the HOA.

Stubbs also noted, to Sharp, other possibilities like the land possibly being conveyed to the town in a deed or the town possibly being reimbursed for the upkeep and maintenance of the property if the town does accept it.

“So that determination would be made once the project is approved and not before?” Sharp asked, and Stubbs replied, “Correct.”

Wade Beale, of Keaton Avenue, sent an email to council members that both Sharp and Stubbs referred to during the Feb. 11 meeting.

“Mr. Beale’s letter that he sent out last night had a couple of other things in it,” Stubbs said, and then he read the following excerpt from the letter:

“As a taxpayer for the town, I would like to ensure that my contributions are being spent in a way that not only benefits my family but others in the community. That being said, I am writing to respectfully request that the community park being proposed as part of the Tidewater Logistics

Center development be considered as a potential site to accommodate the Windsor Wildcats youth football team and the Windsor Legacy baseball team. As both of these groups are growing and in need of dedicated spaces, I believe this park could serve as an excellent homebase for their activities and additional opportunities for future programs.”

Stubbs followed up this excerpt by stating, “Mr. Beale lives on Keaton Avenue.”

Beale submitted a letter to the editor of the Windsor Weekly on Wednesday, Feb. 12, indicating that he felt his overall position on the TLC was misrepresented by how his letter was highlighted during the Feb. 11 meeting. 

In his letter to the editor, he highlighted the first two sentences of his letter to council members that were not mentioned during the meeting: “While I remain against the warehouse project in such a proximity to my home and the homes of my neighbor, I recognize that we are in an uphill battle at this point to come to a better project. I steadfastly believe that the project will have high potential for negative impacts to our community.”

Adams echoed a comment that another individual made about the proposed park during the Jan. 28 commission meeting.

“If we’re going to assume a piece of that parcel, then I want the whole thing,” Adams said. “I don’t want just the part that I have to pay for. I want the revenue off of that property as well. I’ll take the whole thing. Sure, I’ll take the park.”

Stubbs said, “If you are speaking of possibly annexation, that would be something that’d have to be addressed in another segment.”

“Sure, understood,” Adams said. “But I don’t want just the cost center. I want the profit center too, the revenue center. It doesn’t make sense to take an expenditure with no revenue.”