Residents from Hopyard brought two related concerns to the supervisors: litter and debris at a nearby public boat ramp, and an ongoing dispute over a proffered walking trail that developers Hazel offered when the neighborhood was approved.

A Hopyard resident told supervisors that the boat ramp at the pier is littered with bottles and other debris and asked whether the county would clean and maintain the site. County officials responded that the boat ramp is owned and managed by the state, not the county, and that the county would need to coordinate with state agencies for cleanup and maintenance. A supervisor suggested referring the issue to Parks and Recreation and to the state agency that manages the pier.

On the proffered walking trail, residents said the county previously accepted a proffer that appeared to commit the county to a walking trail and that they feel the current board is “reneging.” County officials explained the legal difference between a proffer that “may” be accepted and one that the county is obliged to take. Supervisors cited concerns about liability and ongoing maintenance costs for any trail the county accepted: officials estimated that maintaining the trail over its lifecycle would require setting aside the equivalent of about $74,000 per year into reserves (the figure was presented as an operation, maintenance, repair and replacement estimate over the pavement lifecycle). Supervisors also said accepting and operating a trail could require 24-hour access and that would raise both maintenance and public-safety concerns.

Multiple supervisors noted that Virginia’s proffer rules were tightened in recent years (citing amendments around 2016 and again in 2019) and that those rules require proffers to be tied to a project and to address impacts. County officials and residents said the age of the proffer (some proffers were made roughly 10–20 years ago under earlier rules) complicates the legal and practical analysis. Because litigation is now pending between Hazel and the Hopyard HOA, supervisors said they were limited in what they could discuss publicly about the case.

Residents asked how much the county had spent defending related matters and whether accepting the trail would cost the county in the long run. County attorneys briefed the board in a prior meeting, supervisors said, and the legal advice then was one factor the board considered. Officials did not report current county spending tied to the litigation at the town hall beyond noting the county’s ability to discuss details is constrained while the matter is in litigation.

Residents and supervisors urged local stewardship to address litter: one supervisor said that community responsibility and coordinated enforcement can help reduce roadside trash, and another asked residents to report trash concerns so staff could pursue contacts at state agencies for the boat ramp location.

Ending: Supervisors asked residents to use the county’s online alerts and meeting materials for updates and said Parks and Recreation staff and the county’s legal counsel would handle follow-up items while litigation continues.