This hit the email/internet route about 4:30 PM yesterday, just a few hours before the Public Hearing for the Sage Lane project. When this came up during the Hearing, most council members looked puzzled as did the engineer handling the Ivy Ridge (the let’s kill Sage Lane) project who had just reported that the Sage Lane Road had been eliminated from the proffers. You have to wonder who initiated this investigation into whether or not the issue of putting Sage Lane as a thru road back on the menu. This causes a whole lot of questions to come up as to professional conduct and hidden agendas. If this was an issue, it would have been included in the professional staff analysis provided by the Randy Wingfield. It would have been part of the public record and accessible to the public. It wasn’t. It was a backdoor, last minute, last ditch attempt to manipulate outcome. It might be interesting to find out if the people quoted here as feeling a road at Sage Lane was needed were interviewed. Maybe they could shed more light as to why they feel that was necessary. Here ya go:
From: Randy Wingfield Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:44 PM To: Ann Carter; Bradford Stipes; Earnest Wade; Henry Showalter; Jim VanHoozier; Mike Barber; Richard Ballengee; Lance Terpenny; Barry Helms Cc: Ann Carter; Craig Moore; Kevin Conner; Mike Byrd; Steve Huppert; wbooth; Nichole Hair Subject: Ivy Ridge Connectivity Index/Sage Lane Connection VDOT uses a connectivity index for approval of subdivision with new streets as part of their secondary street acceptance requirements. This index uses street segments divided by intersections (cul-de-sacs are included as intersections) to come up with the index number. Christiansburg is classified by VDOT as a Compact area which would require a connectivity index of at least 1.6, however this requirement does not apply within Christiansburg as we maintain our own streets, I am just providing this for your reference. To simplify it, the higher the connectivity index, the better. The connectivity index cannot mathematically be lower than 1. I ran the same connectivity index for Ivy Ridge and came up with the following numbers: For the development as shown on the Ivy Ridge Conceptual Plan dated 5-10-10 with a connection made to Sage Lane = 13 segments / 7 intersections (including cul-de-sacs) = 1.86 connectivity index For the development as shown on the Ivy Ridge Conceptual Plan dated 5-10-10 with no connection made to Sage Lane = 10 segments / 6 intersections (including cul-de-sacs) = 1.67 connectivity index The Town Administration, Planning, and Engineering staff feel as though the connection to Sage Lane should be made because of general connectivity and for emergency access reasons. Police Chief Mark Sisson, Fire Chief Billy Hanks, and Rescue Squad Captain Kelly Walters concur that the connections to Sage Lane is desirable for these reasons. There is an existing stub out at the end of New Village Drive which could be utilized for access through the Shaffer land via the stub out of Albert Lane shown on the concept drawing. This connection would provide an additional connection through New River Village to the proposed development if it were constructed. Town staff will require the connection if Town Council desires it, but will not require the connection if that is the desire of Town Council. Randy Wingfield Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Town of Christiansburg 100 E. Main Street Christiansburg, VA 24073 phone: (540) 382-6120 x 119 fax: (540) 381-7238
Since Mr. Wingfield has provided his phone number, feel free to let him know how you feel about this. Feel free to call all of those members of Council and ask who authorized this.
Kathy Bowman
July 22, 2010 at 8:24 pm
What is with you people? You ran Lance out so know you’re starting on Randy. All these complainers about eveything in Cbrg, need to move to somewhere they like better. Why don’t you try Blacksburg?
Carol Lindstrom
July 22, 2010 at 10:44 pm
I’m really sorry that you consider pointing out behaviors that can have a negative affect on hundreds of other citizens complaining. If taking an interest in town government and the laws of the State of Virginia is what concerns you, again, sorry you see it that way. Whatever affect pointing out violations of State and Town Code on Mr. Terpenny’s decision to leave is something only he knows. If you have read my blog articles, you will see that while I have addressed some concerns, I have made sure to note that it is ultimately the Town Council that is responsible, not Mr. Terpenny.
I know that a lot of people want things to be the way they have always been. That is not likely to happen when you have such extensive growth. Unless the residents of Christiansburg 15-20 years ago were involved in a massive cloning project, they could never hope to fill all the homes built in the last 10 years. That means people have to come from other areas to buy the homes, or the homes do not sell.
People coming in from other areas will have other expectations, values and beliefs. For communities to grow, there has to be some adjustments made. When State Laws changes, some adjustments have to be made. But, the future will tell.
I don’t know whose orders Randy was working under, maybe it was Town Council, maybe the Mayor, who knows? Whoever is responsible, it looks like a sneaky thing to do. Those very issues about emergency access should have been brought up while the Planning Commission was working on it. It should not have been information shoved through a knot-hole hours before a public hearing. The public has a right to know. That is the law. Laws cannot be simply ignored. If you don’t like them, work like the dickens to change them, but until they are changed, honor them.
FOIA Fan
July 23, 2010 at 12:44 am
Citizens of Christiansburg just want honesty, fairness, and information without having to ‘fight’ for it.
Folks from near and far are observing the antics of the town; don’t be surprised if potential investigations of possible illegalities proceed. Most are aware that ethics have been violated, such as secrecy relegated to the need for FOIA requests.
Wingfield allows for, at least one scenario I know of, certain ‘buddies’ to build without proper set-backs, and even put driveways in without permits. I have proof; these are not just allegations. I confronted Wingfield with these facts as the project was started, and he would not address the issue. Let him leave.
Lance is not gone. He will continue to ‘run’ Christiansburg, via his cronies like Wingfield and his connections with developers and contractors.
Why would anyone want, for just one example, a $7 Million project to become a $17 Million pork-barrel pool on a hillside/hillslide, without clarity to all? That’s $10 million that is in question. An audit of all activities is due, even though a few feet were added to the pool, for instance of ‘change’ in plans. Activities have elevated to crimes against humanity and citizenship, if not worse.
We live in America, not just in Christiansburg and Blacksburg. If you like Communistic practices, maybe you should move to one of the infamous countries.
FOIA Fan
July 22, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Someone usually makes the ‘well thought-out’ decision for non-information, as the Town hierarchy has demonstrated for years. Wingfield may have just again been the (non)’messenger’. However, it is his duty to perform his tasks properly.
While it may have involved only one brain cell, such status-quo actions of Wingfield are purposeful, usually negatively effecting residents.
Roger Mc Cauley
July 22, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Did you really expect that anyone currently working in the Town Administration would do anything in an open and honest manor. The only place that you will find honesty in the Town Hall is in the dictionary. They all must go and the sooner the better for the health and well being of Christiansburg. This raises the question: Should we put a hold on everything “in process” until a new Town Manager is chosen?
We just might have a barrel of bad apples.
WK
July 21, 2010 at 10:09 pm
What is really odd here is that all the connectivity index/VDOT information was volunteered by Mr. Wingfield during the PC meeting. That is what prompted the response for clarification by a Sage Lane resident in attendance. Mr. Wingfield admitted that the Sage connection is not needed to exceed VDOT standards. (Standards I might add that do not even apply to C-burg)
This prompted further questions of the development team by Mr. Huppert, that led PC to require a “tightening up” of the proffer language. What is really baffling though is that he just offered it up unprompted. Frankly, I don’t understand why. All this jabber about VDOT standards that C-burg is not even subject to in the first place, makes no sense. As you said, if it was so damn important that he was compelled to throw it out to PC, then why was it not included in the package to TC?
Now, at that point, I’m guessing everyone there likely became aware that they were in for another fight with the Sage Laners, so there is no telling what may have begun churning behind closed doors. I won’t attempt to speculate, but I will simply say that I find it strange that this info was available at the PC meeting on 7/12, but it took Mr. Wingfield until late afternoon of 7/20 to provide it to members of TC.
Sticking with what we do know happened, Mr. Wingfield, or planning office staff member, contacted the three chiefs of emergency services and asked for their opinion on connectivity. The question is, were they asked specifically about connecting through Sage Lane? From conversations I have had with two Sage Lane residents, both of whom claim they have spoken directly to Chief Sisson, that was not the question he was asked.
According to them, Chief Sisson stated that he was only asked about general neighborhood connectivity. He was apparently never asked directly about NR Village, Ivy Ridge, or Sage Lane, so therefore Mr. Wingfield’s statement about them “concurring on the Sage Lane connection” is inaccurate at best.The question is why?
Why did he not include it in the packet to TC? Why did he wait until 4:30pm the day of the public hearing to send the info to TC? Why did he falsify the opinion of the emergency administrators?
Here are the answers IMO:
1) It wasn’t included because it sparked an issue during the PC meeting, so he kept it under wraps.
2) He wanted it in as few hands as possible, and wanted to limit public blow back, as well as it would limit time for anyone to confirm the EA’s opinions.
3) Perhaps to mislead council. To sway their decision. It’s hard to say without knowing what went on behind closed doors.
Either way, bottom line, something here stinks! It comes down to two “I’s”; either Mr. Wingfield did it this way intentionally for an unknown reason, or he just completely botched the wording and therefore is incompetent. Regardless, since he doesn’t have the decency to resign, TC needs to show him to the nearest exit. That’s my opinion on the matter at least.
Carol Lindstrom
July 21, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I agree with ya! In particular, this was either well thought out or involved no brain cells at all!