Real Life Wesleyan Church concept continued after neighbors cite flooding and sight‑line concerns

Planning staff presented a concept site plan for Real Life Wesleyan Church (concept case 15‑13200009) on Dec. 14. The proposal calls for a new 17,245‑square‑foot church building on a 1.24‑acre‑plus parcel (staff reported the site contains 1 24.58 acres in the packet, and applicants described the planned hall and addition), with access from Old Village Road and a proposed additional access on Baptist Church Road. The plan proposes parking, buffer yards to adjacent residential parcels and stormwater management features including micro‑bioretention areas and swales.

Neighbors asked the Planning Commission to withhold approval until a more detailed stormwater and outfall analysis was provided. Clark Guy and Richard Guy, whose properties lie downhill from the proposed development, described chronic ponding and overflow on adjacent farmland and questioned whether the plan’s ESD (environmentally sensitive design) measures would handle larger storm events on clay soils and at existing downstream constraints. Clark Guy said existing runoff already floods a low point behind his house after storms and asked for a minimum 300‑foot downstream analysis of outfalls. Richard Guy and other neighbors asked the commission to consider eliminating the proposed Baptist Church Road access and relying on Old Village Road, citing narrow roads, high speeds and existing traffic conflict points on Baptist Church Road.

Applicant response and staff review: Civil engineer Jay Hobson and project engineer Pat Mudd told the commission the concept stormwater design meets county and soil conservation concept requirements and that the applicant had coordinated with soil conservation and DPW. Hobson said micro‑bioretention features and grass swales are proposed, and the team would retrofit an existing micro‑bioretention area in the parking area. He also offered to meet on‑site with neighbors to review outlet conditions and to consider additional measures if downstream problems exist.

Commission action and requested follow‑up: Commissioners heard DPW deputy director John Grover say background traffic operations at the intersection near the site were a concern and that DPW would need to confirm adequate outfall and capacity. Several commissioners and the county attorney advised caution about adding conditions beyond the county’s legal review thresholds but agreed additional investigation with DPW and the applicant would be appropriate. The commission voted to continue the hearing to Jan. 11, 2016 to allow the applicant to provide a more detailed stormwater analysis and for DPW to reconsider outfall and roadway concerns.

Ending: The commission left the record open and instructed staff to coordinate a DPW review of the stormwater design, emphasizing that final site plan approval will require documented adequate outfall and DPW sign‑off.