Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?, (Part 2)

Above is a picture looking south on route 17 with Ernest Lane to the right of Turlington Septic Service Sign and the stop sign.

In this picture, we have Ernest Lane at it's very front beginning.  Where the shadow shows up in the picture above along the road, this is where blacktopping ends and the road becomes gravel.  To the right is Turlington Septic Service.

When we went to Ernest Lane to look around, we counted that Turlington has 6 commercial trucks in their yard.  This will become important as we go along.

A better view of the trucks at Turlington.

This is a view looking East on Ernest Lane.  Gives you an idea of the type of road that is being discussed.  This is not a blacktopped road.  It is a state maintained road however.  Now let's look at the VDOT Rural Rustic Road project that is up for vote this coming Tuesday night before the Board of Supervisors.

VDOT RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM MANUAL

Background

The Rural Rustic Road concept, first enacted by the 2002 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia, is a practical approach to paving Virginia's low volume unpaved roads. A pilot program, implemented in July 2002, demonstrated the success of this concept. It ensures that VDOT practices environmental and financial stewardship while providing basic paved access to more of Virginia’s rural countryside. The 2003 Session of the General Assembly amended the legislation to provide that this method be considered as a first alternative for improving all unpaved roads in the future. The Rural Rustic Road Program, under § 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, became effective July 1, 2003. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s Local 

Assistance Division working with the Rural Rustic Road Policy Committee established the initial 

guidelines for this program.

The Local Assistance Division, in consultation with the Location and Design Division, has periodically updated the guidelines to reflect legislative revisions to the program. During the 2006 Session, and again during the 2008 Session, the General Assembly expanded the program by increasing the maximum traffic count on eligible roads from the initial 500 vehicles per day (VPD) to the current 1,500 VPD. In addition, during its 2008 Session, the General Assembly established that the maximum speed limit for a road designated as a Rural Rustic Road, on or after July, 1 2008, is 35 MPH. The Commissioner of Highways is authorized under § 46.2-878 of the Code of Virginia to increase, or decrease, this speed limit based on an engineering study.

The 2011 General Assembly Session amended the legislation to provide additional flexibility 

regarding Virginia Storm water Management Program regulations for Rural Rustic Road projects that meet certain criteria. This legislation provided that Rural Rustic Road projects placing a hard surface along the same basic alignment as the prior gravel impervious area with accompanying shoulder and drainage work are treated as routine maintenance activities for the purpose of VSMP regulations. This revision of the Rural Rustic Road Program Manual incorporates all prior legislative changes and provides additional clarifications.

Rural Rustic Road Concept

Fundamentally, the Rural Rustic Road concept is the paving of an existing unpaved road with a 

compacted or impervious surface and reestablishment of existing associated ditches and shoulders, and usually the new hard-surfaced road is on the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the prior gravel impervious area. Furthermore, a focal point of the program is on leaving trees, vegetation, side slopes, and open drainage abutting the roadway, undisturbed to the maximum extent possible.

Improvements along a Rural Rustic Road project may be less than minimum design standards, as outlined in the Chief Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 11, 2002, Appendix V. AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤400) may be used as  a guide for roads with current traffic volumes up to 400 VPD. For roads with traffic volumes between 400 and 1,500 VPD, an 18-foot paved surface with 2-foot shoulders is desirable, but not required. The District Location and Design Engineer will be consulted for the higher volume roads (over 400 VPD).

The ideal Rural Rustic Road project usually involves reshaping of the roadbed, cleaning ditches and applying a hard surface within existing right of way. In most cases, it is assumed there are no actual construction plans and therefore, few occasions when a Rural Rustic Road project would require an engineered solution. The Rural Rustic Road concept may still be used to address more significant needed improvements if deemed appropriate. However, improvements beyond those required to address specific safety issues should be weighed against their probable cost. In lieu of more costly improvements, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate warning signs as needed recognizing the program goals of minimal disturbance and providing hard surfacing at the lowest possible cost. Typical examples of when engineered solutions may be required on rural rustic roads are when alignment improvements are needed to address identified safety issues, or improvements are needed to address severe drainage and/or erosion issues. Engineered solutions should be noted on the Scoping Report

 (Appendix II)

 and will usually trigger additional requirements typical of traditional construction projects such as the requirement to have plans signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in accordance with the 

Department’s IIM-LD-243, as well as those requirements further detailed under the 

Environmental and Hydraulic Requirements.

Program Eligibility Criteria

The following criteria are those by which a candidate road is evaluated to determine its eligibility for hard-surfacing under the Rural Rustic Road Program. The road:

* Must be an unpaved road already within the State Secondary System.

* Must carry no more than 1,500 VPD.

* Must be a priority (line item) in the locality’s approved Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) 

if the funding source is from secondary system allocations. If secondary system 

allocations are not used, the project is not required to be in the SSYP. However, the 

applicable provisions for public involvement must be met.

* Must be used predominately for local traffic. The local nature of the road means that most 

motorists using the road have traveled it before and are familiar with its features.

* Must have minimal anticipated traffic growth. The County Board of Supervisors will 

endeavor to limit growth on roads improved under the Rural Rustic Road Program, and 

cooperate with VDOT through its comprehensive planning process to develop adjacent 

lands consistent with rural rustic road concepts.

In addition, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, must designate the road as a Rural Rustic Road.

Planning and Approval Process

The Local VDOT Manager, as described herein, is the Department’s local liaison responsible for dealing with a County’s Board of Supervisors regarding Rural Rustic Roads. This is typically the Residency Administrator, unless otherwise designated by the 

District Administrator.

A candidate project is initiated when the Board of Supervisors requests the Local VDOT Manager to evaluate a section of road for the Rural Rustic Road Program or when the Local VDOT Manager reviews a new proposed unpaved road project in the locality’s approved SSYP for eligibility as a Rural Rustic Road project. The comparison of unpaved road improvement options is Appendix VI of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager will consult with other technical experts as deemed appropriate to evaluate the roadway.

Following evaluation, the Local VDOT Manager advises the Board of Supervisors whether the unpaved road can be hard-surfaced through the Rural Rustic Road Program. If the road is not eligible, the Board of Supervisors may appeal the decision through the Local VDOT Manager to the District Administrator, and ultimately the Chief Engineer 

for consideration by the Commissioner of Highways.

The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, designates the road as a Rural Rustic Road. A sample resolution is Appendix III of this manual.

The Local VDOT Manager notifies the District Administrator and the Regional Operations Director that the road has been designated as a Rural Rustic Road. The Regional Operations Director may conduct a traffic engineering study to evaluate the road for a posted speed limit, or post the road at the 35 MPH maximum established in §46.2-873.2 of the Code of Virginia.

The Project Manager/Local VDOT Manager conducts a scoping meeting, as appropriate, and completes the Rural Rustic Road Program Project Scoping Report (Appendix II). An exemption has been provided for this program to utilize this scoping report instead of the traditional scoping report (PM-100).

Now let's go back and once again look at what is already planned for this rural rustic road that comes from Bedford Falls subdivision.

Now again we see from Maps that are on the Gloucester County Government website, Bedford Falls has already stated they plan on putting in a road between themselves and Ernest Lane which is going to significantly increase traffic along Ernest Lane.  But it appears they are waiting to put that road in after Ernest Lane is paved by VDOT at the expense of the taxpayers.  So can it still be argued that these are just plans and that they are subject to change?  Well the argument can be made, but we went to Bedford Falls and took pictures there are well.  Here is what we found.

This is a view down Shyan Way.  Just to the right of the white truck is a sign that shows the names of the roads, both under construction and planned.  Let's take a close up look at that sign.

Well there is the sign for Songbird Path.  So it would seem if the argument were to be brought up that it was only something in the planning stages and subject to being scrapped, the argument is no longer valid as the sign is already in place to put that road between Bedford Falls and Ernest Lane.

Let's look at some other issues here as well.

The picture above is from Google Maps and is a view covering Providence Road to Ernest Lane.  Providence is at the bottom while Ernest is towards the top.  Why is this important?  It shows that there is no North Bound traffic entrance directly to Ernest Lane.  If you are traveling North on route 17 from coming across the bridge, you have one of two options to get to your home in Bedford Falls at the moment.  One is to turn left onto Providence Road and drive through some side road neighborhoods before you can get to yours, or you have to travel to Ernest Lane, make a U Turn and turn into Lakeview Drive to get to Bedford Falls.

  Neither one is a great option at the moment.

In the Google map above, at the bottom left of the two roads is Lakeview Drive, at the moment the main way into Seawell's Trace and Bedford Falls, and the upper road is Ernest Lane.  You can not turn left off of route 17 North bound on to Lakeview Drive.  You can turn left on to Ernest Lane however from route 17 North bound.  However, at present, you can not enter Bedford Falls from Ernest Lane.

Now for some other issues.

This is an up close view of Ernest Lane from Route 17.  Now traveling on 17 north bound, there is a turn off lane so that drives are not blocking traffic along 17.  What is lacking here are a number of other issues that must be taken into consideration before Songbird Lane can become a main feed into Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace stemming from Ernest Lane.  

  First, coming off of Ernest Lane, one can not easily turn left to travel north on route 17.  A light needs to be installed for that.  Also, there is no turn off lane from 17 south onto Ernest lane.  With the increased traffic from these two developments onto Ernest Lane, these matters have not at all been taken into consideration.  

  Further, with Turlington Septic Services being on the dirt road part of Ernest Lane with 6 trucks in their yard, the level of surfacing that VDOT will be putting down on Ernest Lane may not be enough to handle the business use at the front of Ernest Lane.  There are also several people who live along Ernest Land who make their living driving tractor trailer trucks and sometimes those trucks do travel Ernest Lane, so again, there may prove to be issues as to whether the surfacing will even hold up.

  So the question really is, does Ernest Lane qualify under the Rustic Rural Road program or not?  It does not appear to us as though it does.  Now it would if Songbird Path was not planned.  Then it would appear that Ernest Lane does qualify.  Bedford Falls and Seawell's Trace are a real game changer to the entire picture here however.  Plus, with all the other open land around this area, further development will cause even more complications that would need these issues addressed.  If that is not all, there is still more.

Pictures taken between Ernest Lane and the back end of Bedford Falls homes, seems to show wetland grasses along the property lines.  Has a study even been conducted to show that Songbird Path will "NOT" be crossing any wetlands to enter onto Ernest Lane?  It appears that a lot of issues have not been looked at here and need to be addressed before the Board of Supervisors are even asked to consider keeping Ernest Lane on the Rural Rustic Road program.  Again, it does not look like it qualifies based on developer plans.  Now if the developers want to pave the road properly, put in the stop light along route 17 and also put in the turn off lane going to Ernest Lane, then that is a different story.  In fact, the developers should be made to pay these expenses.  It's not the responsibility of the majority of the taxpayers. 

Gloucester, VA Ernest Lane Gate?

Ernest Lane is scheduled for road pavement, at least this is the present plan as shown in the recent agenda before the Board of Supervisors for this coming Tuesday night, August 5th, 2014.  At present Ernest Lane is for the most part a dirt road.  So why is this road of concern that it should be considered for pavement?  Well we decided to find out and what we have uncovered is rather interesting.  It looks like the taxpayers are once again being asked to fund a project that will only benefit a few at the expense of the many.

  Above is a Google Maps picture of Ernest Lane.  How old it is we have no idea.  We will be going out to the area very soon to take updated pictures to show you other information we have found in our research.  But in the mean time, let's take a look at the actual information found in the Board of Supervisor's agenda for August 5th, 2014.

Gloucester. VA Earnest Lane VDOT Project Information, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Another area of interest in the above?  It is stated that everyone of concern in the area has been notified of this information.  Well when we checked with just one resident who will be affected by this, he knew nothing about it in any way.  But he does now thanks to the question.

Look at paragraph 2 above.  WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no more than 1500 VDP;

Okay, what the heck is VDP?  We tried to look up VDP and found 169 acronyms.  The closest thing we could find for what it might mean is Variety Development Project.  Trying to identify what that means?  Unidentified category is what came back.  So in other words it pretty much means nothing except whatever the folks using it want it to mean.

  Either way, this is a VDOT project which means that all taxpayers in the state are paying for this.  Not just local taxpayers.  But should the taxpayers be funding this?  We have to ask that question based on other statements in the above agenda document and what our findings have shown.

  On the south side of Earnest lane, but not fronting Ernest Lane is Bedford Falls development managed by Epstein Corporation of Yorktown, Virginia.  Now who is the Epstein Corporation?  Well with research on that information, what we were able to come up with, they have ties to some local folks, specifically Breckenridge Ingles as well as Adrian Rider Cook.  The same folks who are behind the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with whom Ashley Chriscoe, Board of Supervisor, Gloucester County, happens to sit on the board at the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with Mr Ingles.  Isn't that just some interesting coincidences?

  Why is that even important?  Well, when you look at some of the development plans for the Bedford Falls real estate development, they have in their plans to put a road from Bedford Falls to Ernest Lane.

Now the above map comes straight from Gloucester County's website and is a tax map.  Take a look at the road already named, Songbird Path.  Now let's once again go back to the document above that is part of the agenda for the Board of Supervisors and look at a statement on there.  It clearly states on the document that the Board of Supervisors are unaware of any pending development that will significantly affect "EXISTING" traffic on this road.  Really?  No one looked at this tax map or is it that no one expected anyone else to look at this tax map?

  Here is how this game is played folks.  Go back to the picture at the top or look at the one now below.

  In the highlighted yellow section above, Songbird Path is just waiting to be built which the plans above show will lead right out to Ernest Lane which WILL significantly affect present road traffic.  It gives the developers a second path in and out of Bedford Falls.  This would increase the value to those who live there as well as increase the value of the homes to be sold in this development.  Now if the folks at Epstein Corp had already built Songbird Path, then it would be up to the developers to pave Ernest Lane.  But since they have not yet built that road and it's only pending, then all the developers have to do is wait until VDOT paves it at taxpayer expense and it's an automatic profits increase to Epstein Corp because now they will not have to pave that road and now get the extra profits from increased values all at your expense.

  Isn't that a nice plan?  Again, you have to love all the wording in the above agenda.  It's very very slick and they can claim it means whatever they want it to mean.  The VDP of 1500 can mean 1,500 residences as a low-density term.  So what is high density then? 1,501?  Oh but it gets better folks.  Let's now look at some of the tax information we came across as we were researching all of this.

Can someone please to explain to us how 8.8 acres in this area is only worth a lousy $100.00?  We would like to offer them a chance to triple their money.  We will gladly pay them $300.00 for this 8.8 acre parcel of land.  Right now that is a wooded area right to the left hand side of where Songbird Path is planned for development.  But is this just a mistake?  No, there are more just like this.

Here is another parcel only worth a mere $100.00.  Now why are these folks not paying the proper taxes on this land the same as others have to?  Why are the local taxpayers having to pay extra because these folks are not paying their share?

Now this area has not yet been subdivided and is where the circle presently is and where Songbird Path will move in and out from.  This area is presently at a value of $133, 000.00.  Once subdivided for more houses, it will go up much more.

Another area only worth a lousy $100.00 for 3.27 acres?  Are they kidding?  Who comes up with these values?

Now let's look across the street at county owned property, (questionable as to real ownership and to be covered in a future article) and look at what the county has values set for county property.

Now isn't the above just interesting?  1.41 acres valued at $55,000.00 and another .5 acres valued at $58,000.00.  Where the county got these properties is going to be covered very heavily in the near future.  In the mean time, it really does not matter what the county values any property it owns as it does not pay taxes on it anyway but the point is about why the county values land in the area so high except in the development area is valued so low.  Anyone ever see the prices of the houses in Bedford Falls?  They start at $230,000.00 at the lowest end.

Now here is a GIS map from Gloucester County's own information.  One can clearly see that there is going to be a road put in named Songbird Path which will in fact significantly impact present traffic on Ernest Lane.  Just look at all those houses already planned out.  We can only imagine that there is another set of plans that will later be filed to add houses to Shyan Way circle above as well as Songbird Path.  Why would any developer waste so much land that can be developed?  Might it take the project well beyond or just beyond the meaning for rural development and no expectation of planned development that will change present traffic?  Well we already know that is BS based on what we see and in our own opinion.

  Now some questions.  Did Ashley Chriscoe, on behalf of his ties to Mr Ingles, put in the request for this rural development project here on Ernest Lane as it will benefit Bedford Falls and the profits of the Epstein Corporation?  Will Ashley Chriscoe somehow get business out of this that could make this a conflict of interest?  With Ashley Chriscoe's ties to sitting on the Board of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust with Mr Ingles in itself be a conflict of interest if Mr Chriscoe was in fact the one who made such request?  We do not know.  We are only asking the obvious tough questions and we think everyone should be asking these questions.

Here is yet another GIS map showing Bedford Falls and how it will impact Ernest Lane.

Now does anyone have any questions as to the potential impact on Ernest Lane from Bedford Falls?   Would anyone say this qualifies for low density?

Now, looking at the website for Bedford Falls, which most of it is still under construction, (Lousy web developers?) shows that Shyan Way will have houses on it.  Not shown in the GIS maps above.

The above picture is used under Federal Fair Use laws and comes off the Bedford Falls website.  So it looks like we were right about a part of this not having been filed yet with the county or the county has not put up those filings yet in regards to houses on Shyan Way circle.  Again, just look above.  Visit the Bedford Falls website.

http://epsteincorporation.com/bedford-falls/

Interesting to say the least.

Last minute update.  VPD not VDP is Vehicles Per Day and is a transportation term.  So the 1,500 Vehicles Per Day is what is being defined as low density for this project.  Well under those terms, we would agree that it will remain low density, but we still have to ask the question, why the expense to the taxpayers instead of the expense to the developer when it's the development that will benefit the most?