Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2024 6:30 PM Regular Meeting You may view and listen to the meeting in its entirety by going to the Planning Commission page on the City’s website: https://www.regionalwebtv.com/fredpc The agenda, staff report and associated documents are also available on the Planning Commission page: https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/241/Planning-Commission MEMBERS CITY STAFF David Durham, Chairman Chuck Johnston, Director Susanna Finn, Vice-Chairman Mike Craig, Principal Planner Mary-Margaret Marshall, Secretary Kelly Machen, Zoning Administrator Dugan Caswell Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner Kenneth Gantt Tanagra Cafferky, Administrative Assistant Adam Lynch Carey Whitehead 1. CALL TO ORDER [00:00:01] Chairman Durham called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers and explained meeting procedures for the public. Members of the public were invited to attend or access this meeting by public access television Cox Channel 84, Verizon Channel 42, or online at https://www.regionalwebtv.com/fredpc. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM There were six members in attendance at the meeting at the call to order. A quorum exists. Mr. Gantt arrived after the determination at 6:36 p.m. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA [00:03:45] Mr. Durham asked Staff if there were any recommended changes to the agenda. Mr. Johnston requested to move Item 5 to be after Item 10 due to the public’s interest in the public hearing item. Mr. Lynch motion to approve the agenda as recommended for modification. Ms. Whitehead seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR DISCLOSURES OF CONTACT Mr. Durham asked if there was any member present who has a conflict of interest or disclosure of contact on any matter before the commission. See none, Mr. Durham proceeded to the next item on the agenda. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARING – Continued [00:05:18] A. Multiple Applications – Jeremiah Community (Attachments) Micah Ecumenical Ministries, Virginia Supportive Housing, and Mary Washington Healthcare propose a Rezoning from R-2 to PD-R, a Special Use Permit for institutional housing, and a Vacation of right-of-way. Proposed uses include 189 units consisting of an 80-unit building and 109 units arranged in single or attached dwellings with three community buildings, a church, and a medical clinic. The project is located at the north end of Roffman Road and west end of Bakersfield Lane and is on a 31.7-acre parcel (identified by the Geographic Property Identification Number (GPIN) 7860-90-3994) and 1.3 acres of right of way. (ZMA FY 24-0006, SUP FY24-02, VAC 2405-0002) Kelly Machen, Zoning Administrator, presented. Ms. Machen gave a brief overview of the Jeremiah Community project. The applicants are Micah Ministries, Virginia Supportive Housing, and Mary Washington Healthcare. The rezoning would be changed from R2 to PDR. Part of the property that is not included in the rezoning will remain R2. The institution housing managed by the Virginia Supportive Housing will be a mixture of single units and multi units. The Vacation of existing Right of Way of the unbuilt portion of Rockman Road and Bakersfield Lane will need a determination by the Planning Commission to see if the vacation conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. City Council approved the Planning Commission’s request to extend the review timeline for the vacation to October 9, 2024. Staff recommends for the Planning Commission to review the updates on the project that occurred after the July 10th Planning Commission Meeting, continuing the public hearing until the September 25 meeting, and to defer action until September 25 to provide time for the applicant to address comments. The Planning Commission has until the October 9th meeting to make a decision on the Rezoning, SUP, and ROW Vacation. Ms. Machen reviewed the most recent modifications to the project’s roads, stormwater management designs, and Proffer Statements. The project has shifted to the eastern portion of the property in order to preserve as much open space as possible. During the staff presentation, Ms. Marshall requested for Staff to discuss the two citizens that spoke at the last meeting in opposition to the project along with the thirty-nine citizens that spoke in favor of the project. Ms. Machen said one person spoke as to the legal status of Roffman Road and the second person, who was a townhouse resident of the adjoining property, wondered how the project would impact the townhouse development. Ms. Machen reviewed the four phases of the project but noted that the medical building and roads should be built before the housing is built. Ms. Machen reviewed the Roffman Road Proffer improvements, noting that the proffer needs to include language addressing the sidewalk gaps in the design along Roffman Road. Ms. Machen reviewed the Vacation request. The Small Area Plan contemplates a future road connection between Roffman Road and Wicklow Drive, but the applicant has requested to vacate this unimproved Right of Way to be used instead for community, medical, and residential buildings. Ms. Machen noted that most residents will not have cars, rather, the need will be for bus stops, bike storage, and sidewalk connections. Mr. Durham acknowledged Mr. Gantt being in attendance and that the Dais is now seven members. Mr. Durham thanked Ms. Machen for her Staff presentation and opened the floor to the Dais for questions or comments. Mr. Lynch inquired about financial proffers pertaining to Capital Improvements, schools or emergency services. Staff and Mr. Durham responded that there are no financial proffers offered due to low impact on the school population and that the proposed residents already are part of the city’s population that receive emergency services. Mr. Caswell and Ms. Machen discussed access to the R2 portion of the property. Ms. Machen also noted that a small portion of the property will be given to the city for the Right of Way of a cul de sac. Mr. Gantt, Ms. Marshall and Mr. Johnston discussed aspects of local and federal funding related to this type of project. Mr. Durham clarified that this topic is more the purview of City Council since it does not pertain to land use. The Dais and Staff discussed the definition of “Institutional Housing”. Ms. Finn and Ms. Machen reviewed the suggested realignment Right of Way as shown in the GDP. Mr. Durham and Ms. Machen discussed the possible road connection of Bakersfield Road and Roffman Road. This project could function without a full public road connection so long as the project meets all the needs of the Fire Department. For Comprehensive Plan purposes, a paper road connection could remain in the plans for future needs. Mr. Gantt and Ms. Machen discussed Staff’s recommendation to the applicant for a more formal project phasing outline of which supportive services buildings should be built and operational before any residential housing is built. Ms. Finn asked for clarification of the Vacation of Right-of-Way. Ms. Machen said this would be a straight shift to the Right-of-Way. The city would still own the lane and the applicant would need to enter into a lease agreement with the city to use the road. Mr. Durham invited the applicant’s representative to come forward and make a presentation if desired. Charlie Payne of the Hirschler firm presented on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Payne reviewed the community benefits of this type of project, the compliance with the Fair Housing Act, types of housing, twenty-four hour on site supportive help, improvements to Roffman Road, project phasing completion as dictated by monetary means, and that the priority is to get people into housing while still providing current services. Julie Anderson, Director of Real Estate Development for Virginia Supportive Housing, is part of the team representing the applicant. Ms. Anderson listed functioning supportive housing complexes elsewhere in the state. Ms. Anderson reviewed a typical supportive housing development which includes leased residential units, laundry, staff offices, and community spaces. The goal is to provide permanent supportive housing. Ms. Anderson reviewed the varied funding sources from the local, state, and federal level, along with private foundations. Mr. Durham asked if the Charlottesville and Richmond sites are the closest supportive housing in relation to this region. Ms. Anderson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Durham opened the floor to the Dais for questions or comments for the applicant. Ms. Whitehead and Mr. Payne discussed how a unit size dictates whether the unit houses one person or two people. Ms. Whitehead requested clarification of age requirements of residents in relation to emancipated youths. Mr. Lynch discussed cash proffers, school and emergency service impacts. Mr. Payne said the explanation will be part of the response letter. Ms. Marshall and Mr. Payne discussed the regional aspects and regional support of the underserved. Mr. Payne noted that this specific project is of direct service to the city’s needs. Ms. Marshall and Mr. Payne discussed phasing priorities. Mr. Caswell suggested to shift the Right-of-Way rather than the proposed vacation. Mr. Gantt, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Anderson discussed the unique aspects of this project in contrast to a typical residential project. Mr. Gantt noted that homelessness is a regional issue. Mr. Durham and Ms. Cotter discussed the current homeless rate here in the city and in the surrounding counties. The rate of homelessness has not increased even though population has increased. Ms. Cotter noted that her organization over the years has engaged the surrounding counties for a request to have a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). Mr. Durham and Ms. Cotter discussed the ongoing dialogue about the responsible body that would administrate the medical clinic. Ms. Cotter noted that the intent of the medical clinic is to serve the residents and the greater community. Mr. Durham thanked the presenters and opened the floor to the public for comment on this public hearing matter. Anne Little, 726 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 spoke about the lack of involvement from the counties, vague commitments by the hospital, and road placement issues. Bryan Stelmok, 109 Twin Lakes Drive, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, owns a property in the Bragg Hill townhouse subdivision and has served as the President and Treasurer of the Bragg Hill HOA. Mr. Stelmok spoke about the Roffman Road ownership issue, traffic generated by support services, and proper intersection access to Fall Hill Avenue. Gloria Taharant, 436 Rann Court, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is a twenty-year tenant resident in the townhouses that are adjacent to this project. Ms. Taharant spoke about how the neighborhood’s safety issues have greatly improved in recent years and that the placement of this type of facility would negatively impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Fred Rankin, 4 Derby Drive, Fredericksburg, VA 22405, is the current Chair of the Board of Directors of MICA Ecumenical Ministries and former President and Chief Executive Officer of Mary Washington Health Care. Mr. Rankin spoke about how MICA was formed out of the combination of individual churches’ homeless programs and was meant to better serve the homeless community. Through the years, additional services were added to address the root causes of homelessness. The Jeremiah Project is a realization of combining the supportive services to better serve the public. Mr. Rankin asked for the supporters of the MICA Project in the audience to stand and be recognized. Victor Arvaneh, 441 Rann Court, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, resides in the townhouses adjacent to the proposed project. Mr. Arvaneh spoke about seeing the improvements to the neighborhood but how the location of this type of facility would negatively impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Craig Graziano, 1603 Charles Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is the Branch Manager of the Fredericksburg Branch of the Central Rappahannock Regional Library located at 1201 Caroline Street. Mr. Graziano spoke about how the library is open to all and how the Jeremiah Project will help with alleviating the day-shelter needs of the unhoused. Bill Miller, 511 Willis Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is a United States Navy Veteran. Mr. Miller spoke about his experience of being homeless and health issues. Through MICA’s Respite House, Mr. Miller was able to recuperate after major surgery and was helped to secure housing through the Veterans Administration’s housing voucher program. The Jeremiah Community will be a blessing for the homeless and for the City of Fredericksburg. Kenya White, 412 Chadwick Court, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, spoke about being homeless last year, but through Micah Ministries, was able to secure housing for her and her family. Ms. White welcomes the opportunity to incorporate the Jeremiah Community into the Bragg Hill neighborhood. Bea Paducci, Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 spoke about how the Planning Commission should follow the established Comprehensive Plan, Codes and Ordinances and not approve the three Jeremiah Community exceptions. Leslie Martin, 179 Longstreet Avenue, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Mary Washington and spoke about how the supportive services associated with the Jeremiah Community will bring more institutions and services to the greater Bragg Hill area. Ms. Martin cited several studies to demonstrate how clustering low-income housing in conjunction with institutional services actually improves housing values while driving down criminal activity. Doctor Olugbenga Obasanjo, 310 Frederick Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is the Health Director of the Rappahannock Area Health District and a resident of the city. Dr. Obasanjo spoke about how supportive housing lessens health issues and is a cost saving to the city through less reliance on emergency services. Dr. Obasanjo noted that the Health Department is already in conversation with Micah Ministries about how to partner with the Jeremiah Community. Lou Dogett, 709 Lendall Lane, Fredericksburg, VA 22405 referenced the book “Welcome Homeless: One Man's Journey of Discovering the Meaning of Home” by Alan Graham when he spoke about coming to a better understanding of the homeless issue and the need to belong. The Jeremiah Community is another opportunity for people to care for each other. Nancy Carpenter, Sylvania Heights, Fredericksburg, VA 22408 read letters from individuals housed at The Crossings recounting their journeys from homelessness to finding a home. Through supportive care, they were able to live with dignity and have a sense of community. The Jeremiah Community project shows what a continuum of care is from street to housing. Erica Dutcher, 600 Spottswood Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is a representative of the Central Virginia Housing Coalition which provides low income and section eight housing. Ms. Dutcher spoke about Central Virginia Housing commitment to working with organizations like Micah Ministries and Jeremiah Community to build a stronger, more resilient community where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Elizabeth Woolfrey, 220 Ivanhoe Court, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, resides in the Bragg Hill townhouse complex adjacent to the proposed project. Ms. Woolfrey spoke in support of the project only if supportive services are in place before any residences are occupied. Denise Malczewski, 220 Princess Anne Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, spoke in favor of the project, but requested that the city provide protections to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. James Patterson, 1716 Wellington Woods, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, spoke about how Micah helped him regain a sense of self and helped rebuild his life. Everyone needs a helping hand. Gary Johns, 1050 Bakersfield Lane, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, spoke about the project needing a concrete phasing perspective with emphasis on building the services before building the residential units and safety issues. Mark Houghton, 2015 White Lake Drive, Fredericksburg, VA 22407, was a past manager of the Hospitality Center in downtown Fredericksburg and spoke about how services are fully functioning now, but centralizing services and offices would be a plus. Mr. Houghton spoke about overcoming his own fear and preconceptions of the homeless once he got to know them and reminded the Planning Commission that the homeless are our neighbors. Mr. Durham requested for electronically received letters to be read into the record. Phillip Atkins, business address – PO Box 1246, Fredericksburg, VA 22402, wrote about his involvement with a previous application on the same property for ninety-nine affordable housing townhouses that was ultimately abandoned due to rezoning GDP constraints. Aaron Frank represents Fifteen Minute Fredericksburg Organization and resides at 2634 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401. Mr. Frank wrote about how the proposed project meets the ideals of walkability, affordability, and close proximity to transportation and services. Rainey J. Boyd, 1024 Bakersfield Lane, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, is the HOA Vice President of the Riverwalk Community that is adjacent to the proposed project. Mr. Boyd wrote about overcoming his initial opposition to this project by realizing that the project is well thought out plan. This proposed project offers a comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness by providing housing, services, income workshops, and community support. Mr. Durham continued the public hearing to the September 25, 2025 Regular Meeting. Mr. Durham opened the floor to the Dais for questions or comments as a result of the comment period. Mr. Lynch thanked the applicant for addressing the homeless issue. Ms. Marshall requested that Staff and the applicant thoroughly address the technical review issues before the Planning Commission votes on the application. Mr. Durham requested certain letters be dispersed to the Planning Commissioners:  • August 24, 2014, ROW title opinion by Michael J. Barrett, Esq. • 15.2-2265 Code of Virginia • Letter from Central Park Townhomes HOA President Bryan Stelmok • August 9, 2024, City Attorney response letter • August 27, 2024, Memo – Roffman Road Mr. Durham and Staff discussed the technical details of Roffman Road in relation to the site needs of EMS and Fire vehicles. Mr. Durham noted that Micah Ministries is a private organization that provides community services that the city would otherwise have to provide and budget for. Mr. Durham asked Ms. Cotter to break down the city services involved with a person that is chronically homeless as opposed to a person that receives structured care and the costs therein. Based on government statistics, it costs $35,000 per homeless individual living on the street as opposed to $12,000 ~ $15,000 per homeless individual receiving structured care. Mr. Durham and Mr. Johnston discussed the multiple design meetings that began at the beginning of this year prior to this submission and the state code action requirement that would need to take place within one hundred days of submission. Mr. Johnston noted that only the applicant can request an extension to the action requirement, which the applicant has done in this case. Mr. Durham closed the floor to discussion and proceeded to the next agenda item. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT [02:59:15] Mr. Durham invited the public to comment on any item that is the Planning Commission’s business that is not related to this meeting’s public hearing. Danae Peckler, 1410 Prince Edward Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401, spoke on behalf of Historic Fredericksburg Foundation Incorporated and read into the record her written letter to the Planning Commission. Ms. Peckler spoke about the benefits of in-fill projects as a way to revive older neighborhoods but stressed supporting the expansion of existing preservation incentives to retain and rehabilitate affordable housing assets in addition to new construction. Mr. Durham thanked the speaker and proceeded to the next agenda item. 5. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES, ORDINANCES, OR APPLICATIONS [03:06:35] A. Analysis of Tear Down and Infill Housing (Attachment) Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner, presented. Mr. Thompson reviewed the past five years of in-fill housing data of 49 home permits on empty lots and 4 home permits due to demo or fire, case examples, and related home values. Mr. Thompson said part of the analysis included comparing the 1891 Fredericksburg Development Company Map to the current consolidated tax parcels to illustrate where the underlying lot patterns differ between the two and how today’s large lots could potentially have smaller lots under them. Mr. Caswell referenced a recent house demolition that preserved only one wall in order to qualify as a renovation when, in practice, it was a total rebuild. The Dais and Staff discussed in-fill concepts, Neighborhood Conservation Districts, Pattern Books, styles of pre-approved plan concepts, and possibly going before City Council to request a study of other localities’ conservation methods. Mr. Durham noted that the City has very little control on the size and style of in-fill housing other than setbacks and height limits. B. Small Area 8 Dixon Street / Mayfield Community Meeting – September 4 from 5 PM to 7 PM at 311 Glover Street (Mayfield Civic Association Building) Bailey Thompson, Community Development Planner, presented. Mr. Thompson said that this meeting will be the first of three community meetings in the Small Area 8 review process. 11. ADOPTION OF MINUTES None. 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS [03:32:34] A. Chairman Comments None. B. Commissioner Comments Ms. Marshall motioned to request the creation of a draft By-Law change to require maintaining the Planning Commission meetings up to eleven o’clock p.m. Ms. Finn seconded. Mr. Johnston said Staff will create a draft before the next meeting. 13. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mike Craig, Principal Planner, recapped the August 22, 2024, Fredericksburg Forward Public Outreach Meeting at 400 Kingdom Way. Mailers were sent out to neighborhoods in Area 2 and signs were posted informing the public of the meeting. Turnout was modest. Next meeting will focus on the real estate and business community stakeholders in Area 2. Mr. Craig said Staff has begun to develop video content to help illustrate the Small Area Plan process and post those videos on Facebook and on the City’s website. Staff plans to post future videos on various topics such as open space, housing, and transportation.  Jeremiah Community Rezoning Special Use Permit Vacation of right-of-way Planning Commission August 28, 2024 Location Applicants: Micah Ecumenical Ministries Virginia Supportive Housing R-2 to PD-R Mary Washington Healthcare  Issue • Shall the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval the Jeremiah Community proposal, which includes: • Rezoning of 25.92 acres from the R-2 Residential District to Planned Development- Residential (PD-R) • Special Use Permit (SUP) for institutional housing (189 units) • 109 units with single-unit and two-unit design • 80 units within a multi-unit building design • Vacation of existing right-of-way of 1.289-acres unbuilt portions of Roffman Road and Bakersfield Lane, and determine if the right-of-way vacation is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2232) • Modification to arrangement/layout - no changes in use or intensity - proposed since July 10th Recommendation • Review the updates on the project since the July 10th Planning Commission Meeting • Continue the public hearing until the September 25th meeting • Defer action to provide time for the applicant to address comments • Planning Commission has until October 9 meeting to make a decision on the Rezoning, SUP, and ROW Vacation • ROW Vacation extension approved by City Council May GDP • Project need • Comprehensive Plan compliance • Transportation issues • Multi-modal considerations (transit, bikes, and golf carts) • Emergency service and ADA accessibility • Roffman Road right-of-way use • Fair Housing Act compliance • Terms used the proffers and supportive services minimums • Buffering and open space, including connections to the exiting recreational trail network • Site selection process (why here) August GDP • Decreased land disturbance • Shifted layout to provide better safety access to all units • Modified interior roads • Shifted units off of existing stormwater facilities • Added buffer around the northern stream • Concept stormwater facility locations provided • Large heritage tree protection added • Existing Trail connections • Proposed 4 lots • Potential ROW realignment Other Changes • Proffered phasing • Proffered improvements to Roffman Road • Proffered minimum support services • Proffered a return of the right-of-way • Proffered concept architectural • Proffered concept floor layouts • Proffered to avoid environmentally sensitive features • Proffered 20 foot internal roads • Providing information on Fair Housing & site selection Suitability of the Use Comprehensive Plan Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 – Residential neighborhoods/housing • 39 public comments supporting goals/need • CP considers special needs and homeless populations • CP goals on affordable housing, enhanced connections, and a variety of housing  Transect Analysis • Large areas of Area Plan 2 - T- T-1 / Layout Steep Slope / Layout 1 Open Space on west side (existing steep slopes, wetlands, resource protection areas, tree canopy) • Project focused on eastern side within T-3 Sub-Urban Transect • To limit impacts to T-1 • Limits of Disturbance moved back • Buffer placed around northern stream • Proffered to protect sensitive areas to greatest extent • Steep slopes /buildings layout Phasing • Use predicated on combining support with housing requires clear phasing • Proffers 4 phases: 1. 50 Units/Community Building 2. VA Supportive Housing/Roffman Road improvements 3. Medical Office 4. Remaining community buildings (2-4 developed in any order)  Phasing • Need clear timing to ensure supportive services and safe access are provided: • Specify general location of first 50 units (north side) • Build Medical Office early in southern phase • Improve Roffman Road before using southern section • Proffered Roffman Road improvements needed to meet standard shoulder street section:  22’ paved width  Street lighting  Milling/resurfacing road • Fill gaps in sidewalk (along side with existing sidewalk) Not included in proffers Small Area Plan Compliance • Request to vacate/use unimproved right- of-way connection from Roffman Road to Wicklow Drive for community buildings, medical office, & some units • Applicants needs to show compliance with Comprehensive Plan (§15.2-2232): • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove Roffman Road connection, or • Shift the right-of-way • Road connection should remain available in the event that the Jeremiah property is used for something other than Institutional Housing Vacation of Right-of-Way • Proffered return of existing ROW if developed for other use – issues based on Public Works / City Attorney review • Suggested re-alignment of ROW request: • Keep northern ROW area as exists • Shift structures out of the ROW • Develop timing sequence for relocating ROW to align with project construction Transportation • Traffic analysis on car usage, though residents expected to use transit • Additional information provided: • 80/20 use split Bike Storage • Turning movement analysis (including u-turns on Fall Hill) • Public Works agrees no additional improvements warranted beyond Roffman Road • Additional parking clarity needed Need • FXBGO Bus Stop/turn access shown Sidewalk Bus Stop Connection • Bicycle storage areas shown • Need sidewalk connections to public roads Internal Access • Lots rearranged to provide access within 150’ • 20’ paved “internal road” network shown on GDP • Plans modified to provide 12’ wide paved with 4’ sidewalks proposed (gravel shoulders previously) • On-going dialogue with the Fire Department is needed to ensure: • The internal road surface will be an all-weather material • The entirety of the road will have a uniform weight rating and level design • Property owner will manage maintenance issues like snow removal and towing of errant vehicles • Work with the Fire Department to provide a internal turning analysis Utilities, Stormwater, & Open Space • Sewer - Public Works has requested additional information regarding connection to the existing sewer network • Stormwater - • Applicant has moved buildings off the City held stormwater easement along north side of the property • Additional technical analysis needed for stormwater at site plan • Open Space - • 25% Open Space required in PDR, with ½ as formal open space • 6.48 acres total required / 3.24 acres to be formal • Proffered open space amenities and a preservation area • Quantify large undeveloped areas on GDP to ensure they remain open space Lot Orientation/Dimensions • Standard subdivisions require road frontage, minimum lot widths and ratios, and corresponding setbacks • Institutional housing units are not on individual lots owned by residents • Plan shows request for 4 parcels: • Virginia Supportive Housing (80-unit building) • Micah (109 single/double units) • Medical office • Residual R-2 tract (not to be rezoned) • Intended access to the R-2 needs to be shown • Lot is a modification from the UDO (no lot frontage) Fair Housing, Security, & Site selection • Applicant to discuss in presentation, general response provided: • Project does not expressly limit anyone, but the floor layout effectively limits units to 1-2 people based on building code • Site Security to be provided with limited access points, monitoring, lighting, cameras, staff training, and management team • Site Selection based on multiple reasons including location to services, 10 acre minimum, willing property owner, etc. Other Technical Comments • Should be able to full address • Proffer definitions • Bed vs Unit parking • Building height • Boundary information • Use term consistency • Refuse location • Additional labeling needed on GDP to ensure enforceability Conclusion R-2 to PDR Three requests: • Rezoning to PDR (25.92 acres) • Special Use (Institutional Housing) • Vacation of ROW – to permit use of existing ROW for project components Keep public hearing open and defer action until September 25th to provide time for the applicant to address issues Questions? Planning Commission August 28, 2024 Future Land Use Map – 2014 Previous Rezoning – 2014 99 Townhomes @ 2.3 Ppl / Sfa = 228 Ppl Offsite Improvements • Roffman Road Curb And Gutter Reconstruction (Objection From Central Park Townhomes) • Shifted Roffman Road ROW • Wicklow Drive Sidewalk Connection • Repositioning Of Convenience Store • Deemed Financially Un-feasible By Applicant In Recent Comment Letter Area 2 Small Area Plan Process: September 2019 – March 2021 Changes in Land Use Plan: • Transect Designations Implemented • Expansion of Preservation Area to Include More Environmental Features and Connective Tree Canopy Jeremiah Community– 2024 189 Institutional Housing Units @ 1 Ppl / Unit = 189 Ppl Medical Office Supportive Services Offsite Improvements • Roffman Road VDOT Ditch Standard (Objection From Central Park Townhomes) • Shift Roffman Road ROW Planning Area 2 – 2014 Area 2 Small Area Plan Process: September 2019 – March 2021 Regulating Plan Implemented: • Address Connectivity Between Roffman and Bakersfield. • Continue North / South Trail up Wicklow Drive To Link Neighborhoods and the Wild Riverfront Park into the Citywide System. • Work with Central Park Townhomes Home Owner’s Association to bring Roffman Road up to City Street Standards. Area 2 Small Area Plan Progress: March 2021 – August 2024 • CDBG Public Facilities Project To Add Missing Sidewalk Link To Fall Hill And Pedestrian Lighting. • Wild Riverfront Park Masterplan included in CIP. • Submitted Wicklow Drive reconstruction to FAMPO STBG Program in 2022 – Not Funded. • Submitted Roffman Road Reconstruction to FAMPO STBG Program in 2023 – not funded. • 2024 – Review of Jeremiah Community Project. Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Subtitle II. Powers of Local Government Chapter 22. Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning Article 6. Land Subdivision and Development § 15.2-2265. Recordation of approved plat as transfer of streets, termination of easements and rights-of-way, etc The recordation of an approved plat shall operate to transfer, in fee simple, to the respective localities in which the land lies the portion of the premises platted as is on the plat set apart for streets, alleys or other public use and to transfer to the locality any easement indicated on the plat to create a public right of passage over the land. The recordation of such plat shall operate to transfer to the locality, or to such association or public authority as the locality may provide, such easements shown on the plat for the conveyance of stormwater, domestic water and sewage, including the installation and maintenance of any facilities utilized for such purposes, as the locality may require. Nothing contained in this article shall affect any right of a subdivider of land heretofore validly reserved. The clerk shall index in the name of all the owners of property affected by the recordation in the grantor's index any plat recorded under this section. Nothing in this section shall obligate the locality, association or authority to install or maintain such facilities unless otherwise agreed to by the locality, association or authority. When the authorized officials of a locality within which land is located, approve in accordance with the subdivision ordinances of the locality a plat or replat of land therein, then upon the recording of the plat or replat in the circuit court clerk's office, all rights-of-way, easements or other interest of the locality in the land included on the plat or replat, except as shown thereon, shall be terminated and extinguished, except that an interest acquired by the locality by condemnation, by purchase for valuable consideration and evidenced by a separate instrument of record, or streets, alleys or easements for public passage subject to the provisions of § 15.2-2271 or 15.2-2272 shall not be affected thereby. All public easements, except those for public passage, easements containing improvements, those that contain private utility facilities, common or shared easements for the use of franchised cable operators and public service corporations, may be relocated by recordation of plat or replat signed by the owner of the real property, approved by an authorized official of a locality, regardless of the manner of acquisition or the type of instrument used to dedicate the original easement. In the event the purpose of the easement is to convey stormwater drainage from a public roadway, the entity responsible for the operation of the roadway shall first determine that the relocation does not threaten either the integrity of the roadway or public passage. The clerk shall index the locality as grantor of any easement or portion thereof terminated and extinguished under this section. Code 1950, §§ 15-792, 15-967.13; 1958, c. 460; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-478; 1964, c. 564; 1974, c. 530; 1978, c. 590; 1995, cc. 431, 662;1997, c. 587; 2000, c. 165;2005, c. 937. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section(s) may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 1 8/27/2024 12:00:00  R. SCOTT PUGH Attorney and Counselor at Law P.O. BOX 999 SPOTSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA 22553 _________ Phone: (540) 582-5438 Email: RSPPSR@aol.com Facsimile: (540) 582-6803 August 9, 2024 Bryan Stelmok, President Bragg Hill Community Corporation bstelmok@gmail.com Dear Mr. Stelmok: The purpose of this letter is to address the concerns that you raised in your email. The background of this matter will be summarized briefly as follows: The Plat of Subdivision Section 4 Bragg Hill, dated March, 1971, shows Roffman Road and states in part as follows: “THAT ALL STREETS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE” which section is signed by the President of the then owner Hickock Construction Corporation. A Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, for Section 4, dated 05-14- 1971, was recorded and states that it was the owner’s desire “to dedicate for public use the streets as shown on plat ... .” The Plat of Subdivision for Section 6, Bragg Hill, dated October, 1972, shows Roffman Road and states in part as follows: “THAT ALL STREETS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE, which section is signed by the then owner Hickock Construction Corporation. The adjacent parcel was sold by Hickock Construction Corporation to Bragg Hill Corporation. Roffman Road was never accepted in the State Highway System. A portion of Roffman Road was constructed and is currently maintained by the Association. A letter, dated March 18, 2014, from the Director of Community Planning and Building Department, to the Association, states in part as follows: “4 Ownership of Roffman Road. We believe that the attached 1973 plat demonstrates Roffman Road is a public right of way.” The City’s opinion appears to be based primarily upon the 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia in The Barter Foundation, Inc. v. Widener. A copy of that decision is provided herewith. The case dealt with plats in the 1940s which contained the following statement: “[the plat] shall operate to create a public easement or right of passage over ... the premises platted ... for streets ... .” The streets were not expressly accepted into the State Highway System. Evidence was offered that a street had been used by the public “over the last sixty years”. The Court concluded that the dedication of the street had not been accepted either expressly or by implication The Court also concluded that the dedication of the street created a right-of-way to travel across and use that property as a public way in favor of the general public. The Court then addressed the issue whether the easement had been abandoned. The Court states as follows: “The abandonment of an offer to dedicate property to public use may be proven in the same manner as the abandonment of an easement. See Magee v. Omansky, 187 Va. 422, 430-31, 46 S.E.2d 443, 448 (1948). "The party claiming abandonment of an easement... has the burden to establish such abandonment by clear and unequivocal evidence. Nonuse of an easement coupled with acts which evidence an intent to abandon ... constitutes abandonment.... However, mere nonuse will not suffice to establish an abandonment." Hudson v. Pillow, 261 Va. 296, 302, 541 S.E.2d 556, 560 (2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). While the Town has not accepted the dedication of the twenty-five foot wide street, either by formal resolution or by implication, it does not necessarily follow that the Town has abandoned the offer of dedication of that property. To the contrary, the evidence showed that the Town was aware of the offer of dedication and, although it had "not been accepted by the Town for maintenance purposes," nonetheless considered the property to be an "unopened right[ ]of way ... useable to access" the adjoining property. Indeed, it exercised a degree of dominion and control over the property by requiring its permission for Widener to clear the right-of-way for his use. In other words, the Town recognized both the public's present right of passage over the twenty-five foot wide street under the language of the certification filed with the 1944 College Building Tract subdivision and the Town’s inchoate right, to open the right-of-way at some future date by assuming a duty to maintain the property as a public street. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to establish that the Town has not abandoned the offer of dedication.” There are clear distinctions between this situation and that case: First, the language in the Bragg Hill plats do not expressly create a general right of passage for the public. The language is strictly limited to dedication of streets for public use in a platted subdivision. In the plat, the local government approved that submission. The government has taken no action to ever accept Roffman Road as a public street and clearly indicated in its 2014 letter that it had no intention to do so in the future. The City should not be permitted to take the wholly inconsistent positions that it can impose a duty upon a private association to maintain a road for the public use and even expand a road for the use by persons who do not reside in the community while 2 disclaiming any responsibility to accept the road as a City street. Second, Roffman Road is a deadend. Roffman Road as constructed has not been used and cannot be used for access to adjoining property. Simply stated, Roffman Road has never been used and cannot be used as a general right of passage for “the public”. Third, the City has expressly rejected the developer’s rights to proceed with development of the adjacent property as part of the Bragg Hill community. Attached is a ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals, dated September 20, 2010. In 2022, Bragg Hill Corporation sold the property to strangers who have no connection to the Bragg Hill community. See Parcel Report. For 53 years, Roffman Road has not been used as a “general right of passage for the public’; Roffman Road has not been accepted as a public street; the City has no intentions to accept Roffman Road as a public street; the attempt to expand the Bragg Hill Community with access over Roffman Road was prevented by the City. Based on this analysis, it is this office’s opinion that a local Court, in a contested case, probably would rule in favor of the Association. This office is not aware of the current situation with the new owners or the time frame involved. Thank you. Very truly yours, R. Scott Pugh RSP:sp 3 Dear City Council Members, Planning Commission Members, and City Staff: My name is Bryan Stelmok, and I am a City resident, a property owner within Bragg Hill/Central Park Townhomes (CPTH), and I am the President of the HOA for CPTH. I am wri ng today, in regards, to the Micah Jeremiah Village homeless project. A er thoroughly reviewing the GDP and suppor ng documenta on I have many concerns regarding this project. Please see the below points of concern highligh ng the nega ve impact this project will have on our Community. I am happy to speak with anyone who wishes further dialog. I will apologize up front for the length of this document, but unfortunately this project has so many issues, I can’t make it any shorter.  This is one of the worst loca ons that can be picked with in the City. Yes, this is a very strong statement to start this le er off, BUT unfortunately I think it is true. This area is already the poorest and least represented area. It is unfair to foist this project, and the homeless issue in general, upon this majorly minority area. This is the one area that no one will organize and speak out, and since it is tucked away in the corner of the City, no other residents will speak out either because it will be out of sight and out of mind, and not in their backyard.  The idea of packing poor people into concentrated areas has already been tried and failed over the past decades. They are called housing projects, which turn into slums. That is why we now have Sec on 8 voucher programs through HUD. Pu ng this project here is just another variant of government sponsored steering and concentra ng poverty. The Bragg Hill area already consists of a majority of the apartment complexes being tax credit communi es, which limits the amount of money that residents can make. Very li le of this area is open market housing, primarily Central Park Townhomes and Riverwalk. And now we want to pack in another 190 persons (actually only men, no women and children) who aren’t even low income, they are indigent, permanently un-housable, have mental health issues or other disabili es. This area has enough issues on its own, it doesn’t need more. The City even recognized this in the Small Area Plan 2 (sec on in bold highlighted for emphasis): o Page 11(2)-3: Area 2 Transect Zones  T-4 (GENERAL URBAN) In Area 2, this zone currently consists of a horizontal mix of uses, with some commercial, as well as medium residen al density developments. The Crestview, Weston Circle, and Wicklow Apartments are affordable housing financed by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and the Heritage Park Apartments is a project-based sec on 8 community. For this reason, social equity should be at the forefront for planning-based decisions in the area.  As is always the case with any prior project on this land, the legal status of Roffman Road (and the unbuilt por on of Bakersfield Lane) is always first and foremost, and it will be once again. My neighborhood has once again retained an a orney to review the status of this road. We s ll contend, that the City A orney’s interpreta on of the road being a “public right of way, with a private street” is incorrect and we may contest the vaca on, moving, realigning, or connec ng to these roads, unless an appropriate compromise can be reached. Please see the a ached opinion from our a orney regarding the current status of the Road/Right of Way. Our case is further bolstered by the fact, that during the 2007 nego a ons, on the City accep ng the water/sewer system, the City asked for, and received from the HOA, an easement on the roads (including Roffman Road) for access to these water/sewer lines. Why would the City need an easement on Roffman Road if they already own the right of way?  *NOTE: The remaining comments are made to provide addi onal technical input to the project to show the nega ve impact the project, as currently proposed, will have on the exis ng neighborhood, and the comments will be made pu ng aside the legal issues surrounding the Roffman/Bakersfield right of way. But these comments, in no way, are to be inferred as to reducing or invalida ng our claim of ownership of the contested rights of way.*  The current GDP shows this project being broken in two sec ons, which don’t connect via a public street. In fact, they are asking the City to relocate the exis ng right of way, which goes against the Comp Plan and the Small Area Plan 2. The HOA par cipated, in good faith, during the Small Area Plan 2 development, and for the City to now turn around and ignore those plans, shows the con nued distain the City has shown, over the past 45+ years, for the EXISTING residents of this area. The following excerpts from the Small Area Plan 2 are included here for reference. o Page 11(2)-1: Challenges:  …One key issue is the status of Roffman Road was constructed on City owned right-of- way, but the road improvements have never been accepted for public maintenance due to their poor original construc on…  Interconnec vity within neighborhoods and connec on to Fall Hill Avenue are incomplete making safe pedestrian access difficult. o Page 11(2)-3: Area 2 Transect Zones  T-3 (SUB-URBAN) …Connec vity to these areas should be provided through pedestrian and vehicular access linking Roffman Road and Wicklow Drive in a manner that is conscious of the safety and character of exis ng adjacent neighborhoods. o Page 11(2)-7: New Road Construc on  Wicklow/Roffman Connec on - New development behind the Central Park townhomes should complete the exis ng right-of-way linking Roffman Road and Wicklow Drive. This will create a further connected community. (shown by the red arrows)  Network Comple on: Roffman Road - This street was originally developed in the 1970’s but due to deficiencies in the construc on has never been accepted for local maintenance. It is the central access for the Central Park Townhomes and currently only has sidewalk on one side, though both sides are needed to safely bring people to the Fall Hill Avenue trail from the neighborhood. The Central Park Townhomes Home Owner’s Associa ons and the City should look work together to bring the street into conformance with City street standards to include curb, gu er, sidewalks, and ligh ng.  Reloca ng the exis ng Roffman/Bakersfield Right of Way. Again, this is always an issue with any proposed project on this land due to the challenging topographical nature of the property. The right of way is located on the easiest to develop por on of the property, therefore the developer wants the fla est parcel of land for their project. If the right of way is allowed to be relocated, as proposed by the developer, it will result in two issues. First, if the road has to be built in the new loca on, at a later date, it will cost more money, for the City, as addi onal sitework would be needed. Second, by not requiring the developer to build the full connec on of Roffman/Bakersfield, BEFORE any phase of the project is started, will ul mately lead to the road never being built. The fact that City Staff recommended that the road be relocated vs vacated is just another work around to avoid the developer having to have the Comp plan amended. This again shows that the road connec on is important, but not important enough, to make the current project pay for it (since apparently Micah is being given special treatment). What happens if only Phase 1 is built? Will the City require the next developer to tear up a por on of the Micah project, to complete the road connec on? Or will the next developer, who builds on the Phase 2 and 3 sites just have 1 connec on to Roffman Road? The reloca on of the easement, is really a vaca on by slight of hand. Per this picture (page 6 of GDP) you can see that the new right of way will lie directly underneath the Phase 1 Community Building, thus blocking the road from ever being built. So this a empt to relocate the easement is really just a backhanded way to vacate the current easement and avoid the lengthy applica on and review process. Community Building/Houses in the Right of way  Specimen Trees/Reloca ng Right of Way. Per the GDP, the exis ng right of way of Roffman/Bakersfield does not impact any specimen trees. Reloca on of the right of way will require 3 specimen trees to be taken down (numbers 1, 8, and 10 on page 11 of the GDP).  Cut Through Traffic: Due to the current GDP not showing the Roffman/Wicklow connec on another issue arises. This being cut through traffic on HOA owned “streets”/parking lots, due to having no good way to exit Roffman Rd and turn le to go towards Rt1/Downtown. Any traffic leaving Phase 2 and 3 (80-unit apartment building and medical center) will have to either turn right on Fall Hill Avenue and then make a U-turn at Heritage Park (which is dangerous) OR more likely, they will cut through Central Park Townhomes, on Hickock Circle or Rann Court, to cut over to Wicklow Drive, to get to the traffic light. This will add through traffic to private parking lots, increasing wear and tear, and decreasing safety for our residents. Micah’s claim, that people will turn right and make the U-turn is grossly  ignoring human nature. The below picture highlights the two op ons to drivers. Common sense tells you the cut through is the easier op on. Apt Building / Medical Center  U li es. The water and sewer lines in this area are over 50 years old and NEVER been maintained. The City refused ownership of those just un l 2007. No improvements have been made since then or ever. In par cular the Micah GDP is showing a sewer connec on, from the 80 unit apartment building, connec ng to the exis ng sewer lines right on Roffman Road. This par cular connec on happens to be the worst line within the neighborhood, in which it has backed up numerous mes over the past years, some mes even flooding 343 Brock Square with sewage.  How does a Medical Building, Community Center, and an 80-unit apartment complex fit into the T-3 Sub-Urban Transect? This area was iden fied as a transi on area from higher density townhomes to public parks and nature trails. The proposed development is actually more dense that the townhomes or anything else in this area. In fact it is the most dense project to have been proposed on this land in the past 20 years. o Page 10-16: T-3 Sub-Urban Transect Zone  Improvements are focused on enhancing connec vity to other zones and in ensuring appropriate transi ons to more intense zones. This transect is characterized as with up to 4-8 units per acre…  CHARACTER: Mixed house types in sub-urban neighborhoods with an emphasis on single family homes.  Improvements to Roffman Road. A er 2 submi als, in which Micah did not address improving Roffman Road, in the 3rd submi al they now are, however what they are proposing is insufficient and unworkable. Per staff recommenda ons Micah is now proposing to just overlay Roffman Road and widen any area needed to 22 . How does this work without taking out the exis ng parking spaces  along Roffman Road? Widening those sec ons will impact up to 10 parking spaces. Parking has become an issue within the neighborhood over the past 5-10 years as the total number of residents living within the units has greatly increased, due to the increase in rent/housing within the City. Also, due to City staff recommenda ons, Micah is proposing to complete the exis ng sidewalk network on Roffman road by filling in the missing sec ons. Per the Response Le er, Ques on 3; The sidewalk improvements are con ngent “so long as the necessary areas of improvement are within the public right of way.” I can tell you now that all the exis ng sidewalks, and any area that is missing sidewalks, are on private property, so this proposed improvement is worthless. Also most of the exis ng sidewalks were not built for pedestrian movement, but most of them are farther away from the road and were built for residents to access their front doors from the parking lots. Connec ng these will do nothing to help pedestrian traffic along the road. Full paving, curb and gu er, and sidewalks need to be added.  There is a lot of talk about what tradeoffs are appropriate since this is not a “for profit” development. Frankly, from our neighborhood’s perspec ve there should not be any tradeoffs that nega vely affect our residents, regardless of who is developing this. And for all the talk that Micah is not a “for profit” developer, they sure are ac ng like one. Their ini al submissions for this project try to cram as many loopholes and open doors as possible. o Packing in as many units as possible, even though they don’t necessarily fit within all the constraints of the given piece of land. o Claiming that the exis ng storm water management system, from Park Commons townhomes, will not be built upon, but then s ll showing on the GDP (page 6) a note that the reten on pond may be moved or changed as needed within the final site plan. The red area is the exis ng easement and cannot be changed without the easement holders consent, which has not been obtained. o Ini ally proposing only 12 wide internal roads with a 4 gravel path on each side, as to accommodate emergency vehicles. Then in the 3rd submi al they are now sta ng it s ll only be a 12 wide paved road with 4 “sidewalks” on each side. But no ce that the material of the “sidewalks” are not called out. And there is a note; “Surface Treatment Note: The developer retains the right to provide alterna ve materials for the travelways as approved by the City of Fredericksburg Fire Marshal.” If they were truly trying to meet the City requirements they would just call out the final design of the internal roads. o Making verbal claims that this project, in par cular the Community Center and Medical building will benefit the general area and residents, but then making no guarantees in the proffers that any of these facili es will ever be open to the general public. I thank you for your me in hearing our concerns and I can only hope that you will take them into considera on during further discussions on this project. As always, I am willing to meet with anyone interested in discussing these concerns more. I can be reached at bstelmok@gmail.com or (540) 455- 2150 any me. Bryan Stelmok Tear Down & Infill Housing Analysis Planning Commission August 28, 2024 Bailey Thompson Community Development Planner II  Infill Housing from FY20 – FY24 16 New Infill Home Permits – 53 homes 14 Infills on Empty Lots – 49 homes 12 10 Infills from Demo & Fire – 4 homes 8 6 Case Study: 1. 304 Glover St. – Demo Permit in 2008 4 2. 904 Brompton St. – Demo Permit in 2020 2 3. 1600 Fall Hill Ave. – Demo Permit in 2022 0 4. 215 McKinney St. – Fire Damage FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Vacant Lot Teardown Fire  304 Glover St. – Demo Permit in 2008 304 306 300 Left Lot Before Demo Infill Home Right Lot Address 300 Glover St. 304 Glover St. 306 Glover St. Year Built 1967 1949 2024 1949 Square Footage 1,117 608 1,422 759 Building Value $259,000 $15,000 $281,200 $81,700 Land Value $75,000 $9,000 $55,000 $55,000  904 Brompton St. – Demo Permit in 2020 906 902 904 Left Lot Before Teardown Infill Home Right Lot Address 902 Brompton St. 904 Brompton St. 906 Brompton St. Year Built 1939 1939 2020 1942 Square Footage 1,676 1,189 2,328 2,823 Building Value $247,300 $109,200 $686,600 $438,820 Land Value $210,000 $170,000 $210,000 $240,000  1600 Fall Hill Ave. – Demo Permit in 2022 607 1602 1600 Left Lot Before Demo Infill Home Right Lot Address 607 Green St. 1600 Fall Hill Ave. 1602 Fall Hill Ave. Year Built 1949 1939 2024 1949 Square Footage 1,008 1,553 1,798 837 Building Value $141,800 $91,300 $303,600 $136,200 Land Value $130,000 $30,000 $160,000 $150,000  215 McKinney St. – Fire Damage 217 215 213 Left Lot After Fire Infill Home Right Lot Address 217 McKinney St. 215 McKinney St. 213 McKinney St. Year Built 1949 1929 2024 2008 Square Footage 1,438 801 2,048 2,400 Building Value $171,788 $1,500 $149,200 $362,100 Land Value $75,000 $30,000 $55,000 $55,000  Fredericksburg Development Co. Map - 1891 Part of the analysis was to look at where the underlying lot pattern may differ from the consolidated tax parcels shown in the City’s GIS system. While the areas identified may have a lot pattern that differs from the GIS system, this analysis does not include the level of land title and deed research necessary to establish the existence of, actual location of, or configuration of existing lots of record. Fredericksburg Development Co. Map - 1891 Fredericksburg Development Co. Map - 1891 Fredericksburg Development Co. Map - 1891 Fredericksburg Development Co. Map - 1891 Fredericksburg Development Co. Map - 1891