Commission Sets Hearing On Hilltop Proposal
Trending
WHEELING -- Members of the Wheeling Planning Commission are putting plans in place to gather public input about a proposed hilltop development in Woodsdale by GC&P Development LLC.
During Monday's planning commission meeting, members agreed to set May 11 for a public hearing on an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan, which would allow for the proposed project. GC&P wants to create a 50- to 55-acre development on the hilltop above Woodsdale with a mix of commercial, residential and office space. The plan also aims to improve the W.Va. 88 corridor near the site.
Although the regular Wheeling Planning Commission meeting will begin at 5 p.m. May 11, the public hearing on the amendment to the comprehensive plan will begin at 6 p.m. in the auditorium at West Virginia Northern Community College.
Planning commissioners said they need all pertinent information from the developer to review and present to the public before moving forward with the hearing and ultimately making a decision on the plan. A large crowd is expected, and Wheeling Assistant Director of Economic and Community Development Tom Connelly said the WVNCC auditorium was available for dates targeted for the public hearing.
GC&P Development attorney Michael Hooper on Monday provided an update on the special area plan related to the project. However, an anticipated traffic study, temporary site grading determination and geotechnical engineering reportedly are still in the works.
Hooper said a geotechnical engineering report was expected to be completed before the meeting, but was not.
"It should be done by tomorrow, I'm hoping. I thought for sure we would have it today, but unfortunately that just didn't happen," he said.
Hooper said his clients have met with the West Virginia Division of Highways to review the scope of a traffic impact study, which is also in the process of being completed.
"We are on target for mid-March," he said. "The groundwork has been completed, and the report is in progress. The specific date I was told was on or before March 23 -- that's the date that we will have the traffic study."
A development agreement also is a "work-in-progress" with the DOH, Hooper said, noting that the traffic impact study and the planning commission's action on the amendment to the comprehensive plan for the project are factors that weigh into that agreement.
Hooper said his clients also met with the state Department of Environmental Protection to discuss options for temporary site grading. There are two options, he said. One involves "exemption sampling," which still requires a storm water permit.
"To do it that way, the down side is that there will be no tax revenue for the city," Hooper said. "The material would be moved out of state and sold from there. That is not what my clients want to have happen."
The other option involves obtaining a quarry permit, which Hooper said is a quicker and more beneficial path.
"The benefit to that is the revenue -- there will be taxes to the city and taxes to the state," Hooper said, noting that Thrasher, the engineering firm with which the group has been working, feels more comfortable with the storm water permit as opposed to moving forward with the quarry permit. Hooper said the developers are seeking another engineer that specializes in working with the path that requires a quarry permit.
"Unfortunately we're dealing with large, professional organizations that -- as much as I may have hissy fits and moan and whine -- I can't force them to finalize reports," Hooper said. "That's where we're at. We're doing our best."
Planning commissioner Wendy Scatterday, also a councilwoman who represents the 4th Ward where the development is proposed to take place, questioned the apparent inability of the firm's clients to meet deadlines.
Commission Chairman Jeff Mauck addressed a crowd of residents that gathered in hopes of hearing new information about the project.
"On behalf of the commission and the staff, I thank you for continuing to come to these meetings," Mauck said. "We look forward to your comments. As we approach the date (of the public hearing), we also will take written comments, and we hope to see you there that night to make your comments."
In other action Monday, the planning commission unanimously voted to recommend a new sign ordinance amendment, prohibiting signs in public rights-of-way. The measure was taken in light of a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting content-based restrictions on signs, which had been in place under the city's current code language pertaining to sign placement in public areas.
The city put enforcement of the sign codes on hold until the language in the code could be brought into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. Since then, officials said the use of signs has gotten out of control, with signs promoting everything from businesses to fundraisers cluttering intersections. Many of the signs are left standing and never removed, causing litter and unsightly public areas.
The measure is an "all-or-nothing" approach to addressing signs in the public right-of-way. If city council eventually moves forward with the recommendation, there will be no signs permitted in the public rights-of-ways, including election signs. Officials noted that the measure does not apply to placement of signs on private property, and most likely would not take effect before the May primary election.
Planning commissioner Howard Monroe indicated he was willing to hear public opposition to the action. However, no one came to speak against the sign legislation.
"I think that a lot of signs around town including those that support fairs and festivals shows vitality of a community, and it does not necessarily make it an ugly community," Monroe said. "And I'm not sure that I totally agree with the concept of 'cleaning everything up' and 'clearing everything out.' Having said that, I was looking to see if there were any objections from the community. This is why public hearings are important, because if there had been someone here who agreed with me at the public hearing, personally I may well have changed my mind on this. Given there was no one who spoke up about it, I will go with the consensus and recommend it."