LETTER TO CHAIRMAN YORK PLEASE SHARE THIS ON YOUR PAGES! Dear Chairman York, The No Red Hill Water Towers coalition comprises residents from the communities of Red Hill, Greene Mill Preserve, Huntleigh, Creighton Farms, Barclay’s Ridge, Willowsford, Little River Estates, Watson Road, Evergreen Mills, Martins Chase, Evergreen Reserve and other communities. We remain unified in our opposition to the 189’ tall water tower approved on November 5th about 1000 feet from the Rural Policy Area. Loudoun Water forced the Red Hill site by threatening R.D. Rouse with eminent domain to obtain a “willing seller.” This was an inappropriate action for a public service utility, as they have other locations and choices. Hundreds of your constituents –including over 430 signatures on our change.org petition -- weighed in on this application, and consistently asked for innovative technological solutions. The choice is not abo¬ut providing water. We understand the water storage is needed. The citizens are simply asking that the storage tanks be constructed differently. Before you voted to approve one 189’ tall water tower, some Supervisors expressed concerns about the costs involved with lower tanks, and that water service would be at risk if Loudoun Water’s special exception application was not approved. We expect the Board to deal with facts and not speculation when making a decision that will forever change the skyline of Loudoun County. Loudoun Water’s cost estimates increased with each iteration, and are higher than neighboring counties’ costs. Loudoun Water never provided a timeline to show when the water service is needed relative to the pipeline of approved homes. When asked when the water storage is needed, Loudoun Water’s answers have changed from 2016 – 2020 (Nov 13), 2018 (Mar 14), to “we need it now” (5 Nov 14) with implications of a system possibly at risk. Have that many homes been built to change the need this dramatically? We are completely baffled by your motion to approve one 189’ water tower after your vote to recommend denial at the committee level. You replied to some residents’ opposition emails with the following explanation: Yes, I voted in support for Ms. Clarkes motion at the committee level, but not for the same reason that Ms. Clarke made the motion to deny. From the beginning, I have questioned the need for two water towers to serve the 600 zone. Simply, my vote against this application was lack of support for two towers and once I voted for the motion to deny, Loudoun Water understood that they needed to drop one of them. Because Loudoun Water amended their application to only one water tower, I then felt I could support the application when it was before the full board. This last minute deal with Loudoun Water shows that the facts and requests provided by your constituency were ignored in this decision. It seems that you are out of touch with the citizens you were elected to represent. We worked diligently over the past year to clarify that: - Loudoun Water does NOT have to use 189’ water towers at the Red Hill site, but they CHOOSE to use 189’ tall water towers - Property values are negatively affected by 189’ water towers. - Willowsford withdrew their contract to purchase the parent parcel next to the proposed water tower site. - 189’ water towers which will be the tallest in Loudoun Water’s system, are not appropriate next to the Rural Policy Area. - Neighboring counties use hybrid systems – why is Loudoun Water so reluctant to develop a more innovative solution that is a better fit for the proposed location when they already operate a hybrid system (Sterling Standpipe)? - Loudoun Water threatened eminent domain and worked against the community. - 70% of the Red Hill community is ineligible for water service. Why is the community expected to bear the burden of 189’ water towers needed for growth? - 189’ tall water towers do not align with Loudoun County’s stated objectives for the Transition Policy Area to provide a visual and spatial transition from the suburban east to the rural west, nor is it compatible with the existing and planned overall land use patterns. We understand that item #9 on the Agenda for the December 3rd meeting involves road improvements to align Riverside Parkway to Loudoun County Parkway. This project will eliminate a community well for the “common good.” We salute the Board in choosing to do the right thing rather than the cheap solution for this community, yet find it appalling that the county will spend $4 million to connect this neighborhood to Loudoun Water with a new water system, while our community is forced to bear the burden of water storage we will not use but is needed for the “common good.” The community impacted by the road improvements will receive a new water system, and we understand this – why aren’t we allowed to ask for a lower water storage solution, like that is used by neighboring counties? You have voiced frustration that water service was added to the Transition Zone in 2004, and now you are forced to deal with the solution. There is still time to do the right thing for this area of the county. Please force Loudoun Water to develop a better water storage solution for the Transition Zone Policy Area next to the Rural Zone Policy Area. Please reconsider the vote to approve one 189’ water tower on Red Hill Road. Respectfully, The No Red Hill Water Towers Coalition
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 03:51:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015