Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press staff on sewer, water and will‑serve limits for Duncan Manor rezoning
Summary
Staff briefed the commission on new details for the Duncan Manor village rezoning: a 2‑year ‘will‑serve’ sewer commitment, HRSD allocation limits (about 187,000–188,000 gallons/day county‑wide), and town of Hancock deliberations on water service; commissioners requested staff follow up on village‑development water/sewer requirements and how will‑serve letters are tracked.
Deputy County Administrator Lee Panda told the Accomack County Planning Commission that new information since the April work session affects the Duncan Manor village development application. Panda said the Town of Hancock referred the water‑service request back to its planning commission and that the town’s decision will determine whether off‑site water is available. On sewer, staff discussed county allocations tied to HRSD capacity and said the county could offer a temporary allocation in the form of a will‑serve letter.
“We’re willing to go to a 2 year will serve commitment,” Panda told the commission, adding that if a development phase has not started after two years the developer would have to request an extension or renewal. Panda said county staff had estimated total HRSD allocations available to the unincorporated area at about 187,000–188,000 gallons per day and that the developer’s combined projects could approach that maximum.
Commissioners pressed staff on whether the commission should wait for a water or on‑site solution before forwarding a rezoning recommendation. One commissioner asked, “So should we put this off until one or the other of those comes before us?” Panda replied that staff was not asking for a public hearing that night and that the commission had time while the town and developer continued engineering and allocation discussions.
Developers’ representatives told the commission they could pursue on‑site water or sewer options if town service did not materialize. Chris Carball, speaking for the Odachowsky Group, said the team could reengineer the project or build on‑site systems but preferred central service if the town and HRSD allocations allowed it.
Commissioners asked staff to return with a clearer legal explanation of village‑development requirements and how strictly those rules require central water and sewer versus engineered on‑site alternatives. Staff agreed to research and report back to the commission before a formal public hearing or recommendation.
Next steps: staff will provide written clarification about village‑development water and sewer requirements, will‑serve letter tracking and any constraints on partial allocations before the commission moves to a formal public hearing and recommendation.
