Dear Friend of Belmont Bay and the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge:
If you cannot attend in person or have not had a chance to write to the Board of Supervisors and Chairwoman Deshundra Jefferson, you can submit a comment on this link until 1:05 pm on February 3rd.
Please join us in opposing the Rezoning of the Golf Course for Townhouses within 50 feet of the refuge. Feel free to share this link with your neighbors. Talking points are attached and the Conservation Alliance Summary is below. Detailed and well researched comments by BBHOA Member William Sheffel are at the bottom. The OBRWR is a Superfund Site and disturbance on its Border is a potential health hazard for all!
For information on speaking remotely or to email the Board go to this link. https://pwcgov.granicusideas.com/
The meeting will take place at the County Board Complex on Tuesday, February 3rd. To speak in person, show up at the meeting and sign up between 6 pm and 6:45 pm.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Rob
Rob Hartwell
President
Concerned Citizens United for Belmont Bay
571-212-2129
| Belmont Bay Public Hearing |
| Belmont Bay Rezoning (REZ2024-00040) & Special Use Permit (SUP2024-00036)Public Hearing – Board of County Supervisors (BOCS)Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026, evening meeting (starting 7:00 PM)Where: Board Chambers at McCoart Administration Building (1 County Complex Ct, Woodbridge) To share your views:Email the Supervisors: Send your comments directly to the Board.Speak in Person: Sign-ups begin at 6:30 PM at the McCoart Building on the night of the meeting. You will have 3 minutes to share your views as a resident, 5 minutes if you represent an organization.Speak Virtually: You must register by 5:00 PM on Monday, February 2 (the day before the meeting) via the SpeakUp! Prince William portal. Check the item number by reviewing the agenda. >>sign up here |
| During the February 3rd meeting, the BOCS will decide whether or not to move forward with the request to develop 348 units (274 age-restricted) and to reduce the remaining commercial uses to 15,000 sq. ft. If the Belmont Bay rezoning is approved as proposed, it would represent a missed opportunity to create a true work–live–play destination near mass transit (the Woodbridge VRE) – one that showcases and protects the iconic and critically important Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge provides key habitat for both endangered species and migratory birds. There is still an opportunity to revisit the waterfront area, retain and strengthen the commercial core, and thoughtfully reconfigure development to increase density where it makes the most sense – while providing a stronger buffer to the Refuge and protecting the natural assets that make Belmont Bay special in the first place. The applicant is offering some support in the management of invasive plant species and planting native plants, which is good, but these proffers do not negate the need for a stronger buffer along the refuge and improved reforestation efforts along the riverfront to restore the resource protection area (RPA).Planning Commission Decision on December 10th, 2025On December 10, the Planning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend approval of the Belmont Bay rezoning and Special Use Permit, with additional recommendations forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.You can view the vote and commissioners’ final comments here (timestamp 4:26:50–4:36:40). The applicant has only agreed to a 50ft buffer to the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Area, despite our persistent and very reasonable request for a 100ft buffer. According to Fish & Wildlife staff, their internal policy is 100ft on perennial streams, and peer-reviewed scientific literature and best management practices within habitat management plans for forest interior dwelling species recommend a 300′ buffer from existing forest edges. While the 50ft buffer complies with our county code, shouldn’t we want to do more to protect a national wildlife refuge? >> Read our letter Additionally, the RPA replanting doesn’t meet the reforestation standard, which could easily be remedied.>>Read watershed comments here Correcting the Record on the Heritage Trail During the Planning Commission meeting, one argument stood out. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a 75 to 100-foot buffer on the Belmont side, regardless of conditions on the Refuge side. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot buffer, rather than upholding what’s recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. This reduced buffer was justified by the claim that a larger buffer is unnecessary because the Refuge “clear-cut” its land to accommodate the Potomac River Heritage Trail, implying that the habitat is already disturbed. This claim is incorrect. The trail uses an existing service road. The Refuge simply shifted its boundary fence, with only minimal clearing for the new fence line, and no large-scale clearing occurred. Why the Buffer Size Still Matters There are two fundamental problems with the argument that a larger buffer isn’t needed: Even if the Refuge side had experienced disturbance (which it did not), that would make the remaining buffer on the Belmont side more important – not less. Compared to a 100ft or greater buffer, a 50-foot buffer increases edge effects, including light, noise, invasive species, and habitat degradation. If the parks and open space are placed into a conservation easement, which we strongly support, a larger buffer would also make it far easier for the County and a land trust to manage park boundaries effectively for both wildlife and people. The difference between a 50-foot and 100-foot buffer may sound small, but along nearly 4,700 feet, that additional width represents roughly four football fields of land. That is not insignificant, especially in terms of:Impervious surfaceOpportunities for habitat restorationLong-term stewardship and public useBelmont Bay can and should be a destination waterfront community that balances housing, vibrant commercial areas, transit access, and environmental stewardship. Protecting the Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge with a meaningful buffer and permanent conservation easements is essential to achieving that vision. This is not about stopping development. Belmont Bay is actually a great place for some development to occur. It certainly makes more sense to build higher density here than the sprawl facing Vint Hill or undermining the Occoquan Reservoir Protection Area like Hoadly Square. Where we build is only part of the equation; HOW we build is also significant. The Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge is a resource that all USA residents have a stake in, and as a community, we have a responsibility to protect it. We have one opportunity to build this correctly…let’s build a destination spot in Woodbridge AND be proud stewards of our natural heritage.For additional context, watch our previous program |
Letter below from BBHOA resident William Sheffel for your Information
Dear Chair At-Large Jefferson and Members of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors,
I am writing to urge you to deny the proposed rezoning/use permit amendment that would allow Miller & Smith to construct townhomes within 50 feet of the former Woodbridge Research/HD Labs federal Superfund facility on Dawson Beach Road (now Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge) until the applicant completes legally required environmental investigations.
This is not a request for discretionary caution—it is a matter of legal compliance. Federal Superfund regulations, Virginia state law, and Prince William County’s own Comprehensive Plan mandate comprehensive environmental investigation before residential development can proceed adjacent to a documented hazardous waste site. Approving this development without requiring Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Phase II subsurface sampling, and vapor intrusion evaluation would violate these frameworks and expose the County to significant legal liability.
DOCUMENTED CONTAMINATION AT THE ADJACENT SUPERFUND SITE
The Woodbridge Research/HD Labs facility is listed in Virginia DEQ’s “Non-NPL Federal Facilities” database as a contaminated federal site managed under CERCLA/Superfund authority. The facility’s remedial investigation documented:
- 49 Areas of Concern (AOCs) across the installation, indicating widespread multi-source contamination
- 1,100 tons of PCB-contaminated soil removed during interim remedial action (FY95), confirming high-level contamination requiring large-scale excavation
- Primary contaminants: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), mercury/methylmercury, and Target Compound List (TCL) volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds
- Contaminated media: soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment—confirming multi-pathway migration potential
At 50 feet separation, migration of contaminants through groundwater, soil contact, and vapor intrusion into proposed townhomes is a credible exposure pathway that cannot be dismissed without site-specific investigation.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Federal Requirements
- EPA Superfund Framework: Federal oversight of the adjacent site establishes requirements for investigation of off-site migration and protection of nearby receptors
- EPA Vapor Intrusion Guidance: Federal technical guidance recognizes that volatile contaminants migrate laterally from contaminated sites into nearby buildings, requiring soil gas evaluation where residences are proposed near contamination sources
Virginia State Law Requirements
- Code of Virginia Article 6 (Hazardous Waste Facility Siting): State statute mandates prevention of “significant adverse risks to public health, safety or welfare” and explicitly requires consideration of buffer distances to residences
- 9VAC20-50 (Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Criteria): State regulation requires “acceptable buffer zones separating residences and other sensitive structures from hazardous waste operations” and mandates protection of drinking water supplies
- Virginia DEQ Risk-Based Remediation Framework: DEQ programs require that development near contaminated sites be informed by site characterization data (soil, groundwater, vapor), not by unverified assumptions
- Virginia Department of Health Vapor Intrusion Guidance: VDH directs evaluation and mitigation of vapor intrusion risks where volatile contaminants may migrate into indoor air, recommending sub-slab depressurization or vapor barriers where indicated
Prince William County’s Own Legal Requirements
- Comprehensive Plan Environment Chapter: County policy requires environmental constraints analysis at the earliest stage of development and mandates that environmental issues be addressed before approval
- Phase I ESA Requirement: County watershed and environmental policies specifically require submittal of at least a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment where hazardous waste soil contamination is suspected, with Phase II investigation as indicated
- Zoning Ordinance: County regulations require demonstration of site suitability, including resolution of environmental constraints such as contamination, before site plan approval
The proximity to a DEQ-listed federal Superfund facility clearly triggers “suspected contamination” under County policy, making Phase I ESA mandatory—not optional.
REQUIRED INVESTIGATION SEQUENCE
Before this development can lawfully proceed, the applicant must complete:
1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
- Comprehensive review explicitly addressing the adjacent Superfund facility as a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC)
- Review of facility remedial investigation reports and decision documents
2. Phase II Subsurface Investigation (when Phase I identifies RECs)
- Soil and groundwater sampling for PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, mercury, and TCL organics
- Comparison to Virginia DEQ residential screening levels
3. Vapor Intrusion Evaluation
- Soil gas and/or sub-slab sampling per VDH and EPA guidance
- Design of vapor mitigation systems if volatile contaminants are detected
4. Risk Assessment and Mitigation (if contamination is found)
- Engineering controls (vapor barriers, sub-slab depressurization)
- Increased buffer distances
- Alternative site layouts
- Institutional controls (deed restrictions, environmental covenants)
CONSEQUENCES OF APPROVAL WITHOUT INVESTIGATION
Approving this development without requiring these legally mandated investigations would:
- Violate Virginia statutory requirements for buffer zones and protection of public health near hazardous waste facilities
- Contradict Prince William County’s Comprehensive Plan environmental policies and Phase I ESA requirements
- Ignore Virginia DEQ’s risk-based framework requiring site data rather than assumptions
- Disregard VDH public health guidance on vapor intrusion evaluation
- Create significant liability exposure for Prince William County, as approval without industry-standard environmental due diligence could be challenged if future residents experience contamination-related health effects or property value losses
- Undermine public confidence that the County prioritizes resident safety over expedited development approvals
THIS INVESTIGATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED
To my knowledge, no Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Phase II subsurface sampling, or vapor intrusion evaluation has been conducted on the proposed Miller & Smith development parcel. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with Prince William County’s environmental investigation requirements, Virginia DEQ’s risk-based framework, or VDH vapor intrusion guidance.
Building residential townhomes 50 feet from a site where 1,100 tons of PCB-contaminated soil was excavated—without any testing of the development parcel—is legally and medically indefensible.
REQUESTED ACTION
I respectfully urge the Board of Supervisors to:
- DENY the current rezoning/use permit amendment application until the applicant submits:
- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment explicitly addressing the adjacent Superfund facility
- Phase II subsurface investigation (soil, groundwater, soil gas) if Phase I identifies RECs
- Vapor intrusion evaluation per VDH and EPA guidance
- Risk assessment and proposed mitigation measures if contamination is detected
- Require County staff to verify that all environmental investigation requirements under the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied before any future approval
- Coordinate with Virginia DEQ to ensure that any proposed mitigation measures are consistent with state risk-based remediation standards
The residents of Prince William County—including future purchasers of these townhomes—deserve assurance that their homes meet legal safety standards. Requiring the applicant to complete investigation work that is already mandated by County policy and state law is not an unreasonable burden; it is a legal necessity and a baseline standard of care.
Our families, children, and future residents deserve protection from preventable harm. I urge you to uphold Prince William County’s own environmental protection policies and vote NO on this application until legally required environmental investigations are completed and reviewed.
Thank you for your time, dedication to our county, and commitment to responsible development that protects public health.
Sincerely,
William B. Sheffel
Belmont Bay Resident
757 Vestal Street
Woodbridge, VA 22191
William.Sheffel@chghealth.org
Enclosure: Executive Summary of Legal Framework for Environmental Investigation Requirements (available upon request)