Greenwich Meadows proposal advances with well-mitigation language after resident concerns about private wells

The Planning Commission on Oct. 17 voted to find the Greenwich Meadows comprehensive-plan compliance review substantially in accord and to forward a Category 20 special exception for an 88,000-gallon above-ground water storage tank and associated well system to the Board of Supervisors, adding language directing staff to incorporate an applicant-proposed well-mitigation program.

Ms. Marshall summarized the proposal: an 84.25-acre site off Nicholson Lane in Nokesville proposed for 40 single-family lots, two utility/well lots (approximately 0.7 acres combined), two production wells, a water treatment facility, a water processing building, a 5,000-gallon hydro-pneumatic tank and an emergency generator. Well Lot 1 was described as about 10,000 sq ft and Well Lot 2 about 20,000 sq ft. The application materials cite an 88,000-gallon above-ground storage tank 30 feet high at its peak and staff prepared two resolutions for the commission to consider (A: in accord; B: not in accord).

Applicant counsel John Foote described the project history and the hydrogeologic study. Foote said the combined production capacity of the two proposed wells is 288,000 gallons per day, while estimated use for 40 homes is between 16,000 and 28,000 gallons per day. Foote and his clients said the shortfall between production capacity and projected use supports the feasibility of a 40-lot subdivision and noted that the system is proposed to be owned and operated by the Fauquier County Water and Sanitation Authority (WSA) after construction under an infrastructure agreement.

Several nearby residents testified during public comment. Dave Roland said the land-development plan referenced a non-existent 'Lakewinds Drive' and expressed concerns about traffic on Greenwich Road, the omission of particular private wells from the study, and whether costs for mitigation would fall on neighbors. Josh Carlson, who lives on Greenwich Road, said he worried about road access located near his property, potential disruption from construction, the odor from treatment facilities, and whether residents would be compelled to connect to the new system. Will Halsey asked who would be financially responsible if the production well failed and whether homeowners would be forced to connect to the system.

In response, Foote described a draft well-mitigation program he provided to staff: private well owners within the study’s defined area of potential impact could file a complaint; the owner of the production well (and ultimately the WSA if it takes over) would be responsible for monitoring and, if a well is found to be adversely affected, for mitigation at the production-well owner’s expense. Proposed remediation steps include installing monitoring equipment and comparing measurements to hydrogeologic baselines, deepening or redrilling an affected private well, allowing connection to the community water system with board approval, or adjusting pumping schedules. Foote said staff could refine the condition language.

Unidentified Speaker 7 moved to find the comprehensive-plan compliance review substantially in accord and to forward the special exception to the Board of Supervisors with direction that staff add the applicant’s well-mitigation language; Unidentified Speaker 6 seconded and the motion passed by voice vote. Commissioners discussed requiring WSA specifications for construction and an infrastructure agreement as part of any conditions and emphasized that the special exception as written limited potable water to the 40 proposed lots unless an amendment and additional hydrogeologic study were later approved.

The commission’s recommendation, including the well-mitigation program language and infrastructure conditions, will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action.