The May 1st public hearing on Charles Town's proposal for an urban growth boundary drew about 150 hundred people, many of whom could not get inside the meeting room. The hearing began with a statement by Mayor Peggy Smith (see below). Of 78 who signed up to speak, fifty five spoke, with many, as the evening wore on, opting to not speak. Each person had five minutes. Some were given additional speaking time by other signees, who then did not speak. Fifty-three spoke against the proposal and two persons, Kabletown landowner Doug Stolipher and Attorney Peter Chakmakian, spoke for it. This transcript is excerpts from the first twenty two people who spoke in order of their appearance. Also see "a timeline" for more information JS.

"I am opposed to this expansive urban growth boundary. Every trip I take from my house involves Kabletown Road. I'm quite familiar with the road. And looking at the proposed boundary, I noted right away that it is quite - veered off Kabletown Road into the county's rural zone to take in a proposed large, dense development, known as Thornhill. If you vote to approve the urban growth boundary as proposed, if this means easy annexation into the city, the Thornhill developers will be in here tomorrow morning as soon as they can, asking to be annexed. They haven't been able to get through the county zoning process because of the high density of the development.

"I must say, many of us are quite perplexed, to put it mildly, how this Thornhill appendage became attached to the urban growth boundary. Annexing this one piece of land and allowing nearly six hundred homes on less than 550 acres will fundamentally alter the character of this rural area and change the way of our life forever, those living near the development.

"In terms of traffic alone, the developers have estimated that Thornhill will generate an estimated 4760 vehicle trips per day, that's nearly 5,000 new car trips per day on roads already overloaded well beyond the capacity they were built for. . . ."

"And, according to Section 8A 3-14: "The jurisdiction of a municipal planning commission shall not extend beyond the corporate limits of the municipality." Finally, according to Section 8A 3-13, all governing bodies within the jurisdiction of the planning commission preparing a comprehensive plan, (and I add, an urban growth boundary): "All governing bodies affected by the plan and any other interested or affected governing bodies must cooperate, participate, share information and give input when a planning commission is preparing its comprehensive plan, (and I would say, its urban growth boundary). I suggest the city council withdraw its proposed comprehensive plan and its urban growth boundary and proceed with a new effort. . . ."

"West Virginia is a beautiful place to live. I want to keep it that way. I am disappointed and disillusioned at what's been going on, the ignorance, the public outcry that we stop this - in many cases illegal - or circumventing laws to create development. There's no plan in place. There are safety issues that haven't been addressed. We've gone to meeting and meeting and meeting and we keep losing every meeting. And I don't know why. And then we find this, of course we're upset. . . . . Please reschedule this debate.

"I'm Katherine Funkhouser and I live on what's now called Earle Road. . ."

(NOTE: Ms Funkhouser stated that she had misapplied a comprehensive plan survey, for another Town of Charlestown that she found on the Internet, to this situation - JS). "I can say I was wrong (about that comprehensive plan) and I ripped it up. I hope you can say that about this urban growth boundary.

"I was disheartened and dismayed to review the urban growth boundary, which is up for your vote tonight. This city, in desperately trying to compete with Ranson over who has the biggest perimeter, has drawn a huge circle which includes active farmland, which includes our own thoroughbred horse farm.

"There are no provisions in the city code for farms. Farms are useless in a city. The city has decided, by creating the 'urban growth boundary' - which I guess is the same as if to say "city limits", I don't know what 'urban growth boundary' means. I think that's what it means. Anyway, by creating these city limits, which includes farmland, you doom all farmland within the perimeter.

"When I brought this up to Mr. Camp, he was very kind, he was very gracious in his time on April 24th, but he did suggest that we move. Clearly planners are clueless about the value of agri-business and the generations that it takes to build a farm. I invite all of you to come to my farm - 1504 Earle Road - and see if we should be put out of business by the city. . . ."

(NOTE: After citing several historic homes on Earle Road, Ms. Funkhouser continued - JS):
"You do give a token nod to the value of historic preservation in your plan. However, on the map, you've replaced this country road with a four-lane, ninety-foot mega-highway, barreling through these homes. You've an industrial park slated for in the back yard of Blakeley." (NOTE: This home was the summer home, from 1831 and 1858, for the last three members of the Washington family to own Mt. Vernon - JS).

"Recently a non-profit has purchased Happy Retreat which is within its city borders." (NOTE: This is being studied. - JS). "Under your plan this will be the only Washington home that will be protected. The rest of the homes are presumably expendable."

"It appears you've spent a long time on the plan, but haven't actually visited the areas which this will impact.
... inaudible ... with no value or consideration given to the value of historic heritage and the tourism benefit of the land properties within this uniform growth boundary. If you can imagine a four-lane highway replacing Samuel Street - close your eyes, picture it - you'll understand how the residents of Earle Road feel . . . ."

Referring to the comprehensive plan document of the town, Ms. Funkhouser continues:
"On page twenty, the draft says the UGB radiates approximately two miles to the east, south and west. That's false and also misleading, because Earle Road is actually three-and-a-half miles from town. Again, what the plan says and what the map displays are two different pictures.

"The reasons for the land grab I found on page 68 (of the comprehensive plan) under the title: 'The Future'. This is what's on page 68: 'Charles Town has limited land for expanding its commercial, and industrial, or employment base. The adjoining city of Ranson has annexed a large area to create an inventory of employment-designated land. The large inventory of employment acreage allows Ranson to compete with county-zoned commercial areas and the industrial park. ... inaudible ... secure a larger non-residential tax base. Without an inventory of vacant land or identified infill areas suitably designated for employment, Charles Town cannot compete with the county and other municipalities for new economic growth' . . . ."

(NOTE A recent survey of horse breeders nationally ranked Mr. Funkhouser's O'Sullivan Farms as No. 20 in importance, the highest ranking of any such operation in West Virginia. - JS)

"I am here tonight and I find it unconscionable the decision you have made to go forward with an urban growth boundary and its affiliated comprehensive plan. This is one of the most historical counties in the entire country. There are more homes on the National Historic Register in Jefferson than in any county, other than around the Fredericksburg, Virginia area. It's also known as one of the most commercially productive counties of agricultural lands of all counties on the entire east coast.

"It has been known for years that Lancaster County and Jefferson County are the most fertile counties on the whole eastern seaboard. . . .In my business, we have tried to pioneer the horseracing business and breeding business in this county. We have brought worldwide stallions into this county for the first time. Farmland is being preserved through horseracing, as well as farmers looking at other alternatives than the traditional farming of cows and crops . . . All throughout the county, there is a want to preserve farmland. This plan takes none of that into accord. It basically creates a seedbed around us for open development, for an urban growth boundary.

"If someone besides me or around me in an urban growth boundary begins to develop their land and comes into you and asks you to do that, suddenly a farm is surrounded on different sides, as you run that. Eventually it's going to affect the roads, water, the sewage and everything. Let's not be misrepresented here by assuming that this won't eventually happen.

"I personally am not against some form of growth. But I think this plan is insane. I would have to have been psychic to read your advertisements in the paper to know that I, as a county taxpayer on Earle Road, would be affected by the city of Charles Town's urban growth boundary and comprehensive plan. I don't vote for you people. I vote for the County Commission. That is my jurisdiction. . . . "

"I'm here tonight to object strongly to the 'appendage' apparent in your urban growth boundary. I use the word 'appendage' as it is apparent that the land mass you are embracing into the city - Route 9, John Rissler Road and Hammond Lane - does not follow a logical growth path and is immediately apparent to anyone who looks at your map.

"In a previous life I ran a national program, called 'Shaping Growth in American Communities.' We had thirty-five cities and towns around the country. I assure you there was not one who passed an urban growth boundary before they passed a comprehensive plan. A plan is a vision statement. The growth boundary follows the vision of the plan . . . ."

"I am vehemently opposed to the current urban growth boundary for your consideration for a final vote this evening. I am shocked and dismayed by the lack of process and the apparent attempt to keep citizen input at a minimum by a quick approval of a UGB before the actual comprehensive plan is signed. . ."

"The county's pretty specific that in its comprehensive plan that 86 per cent of the county is under-run by karst topography. That's sinkholes. How can we proceed with this, not knowing what kind of development is going to be over a sinkhole?"

"As far as I can determine, there have been no source water protection studies done; no studies of any kind have been done in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. I think it's only a matter of time before disaster strikes. . . . "

"I live off of Kabletown Road. And I love it there. And I just want to make a comment that I would not want to be annexed into the city. I would not want to have to pay to close up my well, and have city taxes and water bills and all that stuff. If I wanted to live in the city, I would have moved in the city. I'm very concerned about so much rural land being incorporated into the City of Charles Town.

"There was an article in "The Washington Post" on April 20th called "The River Under Siege." I'm very concerned about the Shenandoah River. . . .This is a very good article and it starts out by saying: "Paved drive ways, parking lots, roads and other trappings of encroaching development are threatening the health of the delicate and storied Shenandoah River which made its ... inaudible ... debut yesterday on an annual list of the nation's ten most endangered rivers. They're number five on the list. . . . ."

I was here two years ago when the city decided to, uh, set their boundaries. And, I live on Kabletown Road. I was incorporated into the boundary at that time. I used to be a resident of Charles Town. I moved out of Charles Town because I didn't like what Charles Town had to offer. Their bills, their water and sewer bills, rate hikes, the trash, at the time there was a lack of law enforcement. You had to have a tax base that was paying. . . I wonder if the citizens of Charles town know what it costs to have this kind of survey done. . . ."

I am speaking for William and Nancy Perry and Gwen and Scott Jodoin, residents of Charles Town.

'Dear Mayor, City manager, and City Council:

'As concerned citizens of Charles Town, we oppose the proposed urban growth boundary and the rush to vote on it. Since the boundary is what is on the agenda tonight, comments should be addressed to this issue alone. However, this should in no way, indicate we approve of the comprehensive plan from what we know of it. Our reasons for opposing are listed below.

"Procedure: The sequence of this procedure is illogical. The boundaries of the town are to further the goals of the comprehensive plan, not the other way around. Regardless of what the reasons are at this point for charting the land, it still has no underlying support without the comprehensive plan, which has not been approved.

"Infrastructure: There certainly is no infrastructure in place now for doubling the size of Charles Town. What commitments are in place from the DOH (Department of Highways) for highway expansion? What about schools? Water? What about people that don't want sewer hook-ups? How would their water be affected by new sewer pipes running through our karst topography? What about the water table in general for those on wells? Has allocation for capacity for the new sewer for this new geographical area been agreed upon?

"Services: If you double the size of Charles Town, you are now responsible for providing for people within this area with services. They need fire, rescue, police, and social services. Has anyone even asked volunteer fire departments that are currently operating under the auspices of the county how they would feel if their ultimate governing authority is Charles Town? Who will coordinate these services?

"Costs: Who is going to pay for the above requirements? By expanding the city's boundaries, you give the citizens of Charles Town all the responsibility, all the problems, and the costs. You are doubling our problem. You are mortgaging the future and asking us to pay for it. Property taxes now are such an issue that County Commission hearings are being held about it. This is an enormous burden that we do not want to assume.

"City government responsibility: If you double the size of Charles Town, what is the City government's plan to handle this additional workload? Who will pay for these new positions? Or will you just expect the current staff to do twice as much work? Given the way this matter has been handled with little or no publicity or chance to provide input certainly does not inspire confidence. . . ."

"My husband, Richard, and I have lived in Jefferson County for thirty years. I was so saddened when I recently discovered the revised City comprehensive plan and the new urban growth boundary that increased the boundary east on Kabletown Road. We live on a lane off John Rissler Road. I can appreciate that the City of Charles Town is interested in economic growth. However, the extended boundaries for urban growth are excessive and will be costly in loss of farmland and rural acreage. . ."

"I live near Kabletown, not within the proposed urban growth boundary. However, my family farm is located on Summit Point Road and would be directly affected by this. My mother could not be here tonight and is a property owner along with my aunt have authorized me to state that they are opposed to it as I am.

"I second many of the reasons that you have heard previously tonight. I don't want to take up any more of your time. Thank you very much."

"Forgive me if I stutter and stammer. I'm a little upset and heartbroken at the same time. I've known a lot of you all my life and for us to have to go through this, to me, it tears me up. . . ."

"I'm a fourth generation to grow up here in this county. My son and daughter will be the fifth.
I've graduated from school here. And ever since then, I've worked in the heart of downtown Charles Town. It's going on seventeen years years. I've never worked anywhere else. And I love this city and I love the county that I live in. I hate to see it change.

And I know growth is going to happen. I know we need it. And a lot of these people do too; they're not against growth. They're just against the way it's going now, the way it's proposed to them, in this fashion. All they're looking for is a say in how we grow. That's why I just ask you to search your hearts tonight and ask yourselves, you know, just use the Golden Rule, and ask yourselves: 'How would I want to be treated.?' Treat people as though you would want to be treated, and if you would want a say in what happens to the way of life as you know it and the way you're living now. So I ask you just to vote 'No,' or at least to table this. . . ."

"I was born and raised in Jefferson County and grew up on a farm. My heart and soul have always been in the country. And even though my husband and I started out on Jefferson Avenue - we lived there for ten years - we now own a home in Tamarind (sic-JS) subdivision on Earle Road and we moved out of town to get out of the city life.

"I want for my kids what I had growing up. The urban growth boundary will affect my family's way of life as we know now. And I strongly oppose the urban growth boundary and urge you to vote against the current proposal."

"I'm Linda Case, owner of Cool Spring Farm on Lloyd Road, adjacent to the southwest corner of the proposed urban growth boundary. I am outside of it, but adjacent to it. I am opposed to the urban growth boundary.

"First, what you are doing and the way you are doing seem antithetical to the notion of democracy, neighborliness, transparency and legality.

"Second, I want to call your attention on this wonderfully colored map to the purple section in the lower southwest corner. It contains 1400 - yes 1400 - acres of industrial potential zoning. Now, think about the people on the boundary, of which I am one. There are many lots to the left hand side (referring to the map-JS) that people live on and I've brought a petition from those people.

"The green line running under it is the Bullskin Run, the historic Bullskin Run, an important stream of water that attracted many of the earliest settlers to our area. The buildings along this portion of the Bullskin, (less than two miles long I'm going to be talking about), have been studied by experts and are recommended for inclusion in the National Historic Register as the 'Bullskin Rural Historic District.'

"It's been called the largest, contiguous mass of land which retains the character of our area from two hundred years ago. I'm going to give you just a partial list: architectural remains of four mills, the fifth mill and the mill-keeper's house still standing; homes of early Quaker settlers with their unique building style, as well as the Quaker cemetery; a small and beautifully kept chapel and parsonage used by circuit riding preachers from many denominations; a one-room schoolhouse; the historic houses of Cool Spring, Fairfax Grant Farm, Rock Spring, Sunnyside, Locust Hill, the Grubb Farm, Straithmore, and Burrland - all considered eligible for the National Historic Register designation. . . ."

“I’m a teacher – already underpaid, overworked, and overcrowded. But I have to say – speaking of ‘overcrowded’ – I find it very appalling that you have continued with this meeting in a very crowded situation where most people can’t even be in the room, while you sit.

“By now, I’m reminded of the Boston Tea Party in that if I am annexed I have annexation without representation, thereby “taxation without representation.” I did not vote for you and I did not vote to your plan. I happen to like my well water. I happen to like my rural living. I too am concerned over the water and land pollution.

“If I am annexed, I will be paying city taxes. Therefore I will expect the same equality of revenue spending that the people of Charles Town – the City of Charles Town – receive. In other words, I expect my mail to be delivered at my door. I expect leaf removal, debris removal, snow removal, road maintenance, and road upgrades. Something tells me that this will not happen where I live.”

"I realize with the expanded growth zone that we don't need to be annexed. But even if we choose not to, and we choose not to, our quality of life will diminish.

"We moved away from D.C. to live in the country. We love it here. And we want it to stay the way it is. If my neighbors are annexed, if the farm down the road is annexed and zoned residential, that's going to severely diminish my quality of life. . . "

"I will say - this is a bit tongue in cheek - but when I lived in D.C., I knew where the danger of mugging was. Here, it sort of hit me from left field. I'm just floored by the seeming, the level of disregard for those of us who live here. I understand that Mr. Breeden (A Town Council member - JS) who said in the paper today that we're spreading misinformation. Inform us. Take the time, if you believe in this plan - if the comprehensive plan and the separate urban growth boundary are important - if they are good for the city - let us know. Let us find out about it. Take the time to do it right. Otherwise I've got to believe you don't believe it's going to succeed. . . ."

"I live on Wheatland Road. We live on the Grubb Farm, which I believe somebody mentioned before. It was built in 1765. It's on the National Historic Registry. And I'm shocked and appalled that, in ten days of local politics, it's threatened to be destroyed. It was a farm before this nation was even a country.

"The first draft of this plan, which I understand we're not allowed to talk about, but which you address in your press release (Mayor Peggy Smith - JS). I'm sorry to adopt that tone, but I do sort of have a trust issue at this point. We're looking now at an industrial zone in our backyard.

"We moved here from Washington, as Ellen said, to get away from the concrete. We love the community. We love the community here. We found out about this only because of our friends and our neighbors. And I can't go into the local issues . . . because I haven't had time to educate myself for exactly the reasons other people are addressing the way this was brought about.

"This has not been well publicized. We haven't had enough time to inform ourselves on the issues.
In your press release here, you say that you have done questionnaires and interviews with all these different organizations. We'd like to see the results of these. I mean, do the hospitals, emergency services, public schools - are they all willing to take on all this new acreage, all these new houses and commercial services? And can the EMS and the hospitals really address all of the new infrastructure demands that this is going to put on their systems? And how is this going to be addressed? . . ."

"There are very few times in my life that I have been speechless. And in the last few weeks those number of times have multiplied in a way I can't begin to describe.

"Flippant remarks by local Council members and printed in the local media only confirm what we suspect as an effort - (pause) - I'm gonna pop a wheelie folks, I'm sorry - to furtively undermine the lifestyle of county residents in a land grab that makes the western expansion pale in comparison. What you plan to vote on tonight
affects more than farmland owners. May I take this time now to demand that you remove every square inch of my property that has my name on a deed from any plans, present or future, to be part of your town.

(A tape recording of roosters and chickens is heard. - JS) "This is a sound that you folks will miss. This is what greets me every morning and every evening when I go to feed. The only one that didn't cooperate is my donkey. But we've got a lot of those around here. . . ."

"Your comprehensive plan states that, if a UGB crosses any property, that that entire property will be considered within the UGB for annexation consideration. My farm falls in that category. Your road proposes to divide my farm in half . . ."

"I have wetlands on my property; I have three historic homes - one pre-dates the 1730s - recreational equestrian trails, wildlife habitats, private hunting and fishing on a pristine stream. Your plan would abort all efforts and dreams to preserve this property. Not only my legacy, but for the legacy for my son and his children.

"Inadequately announced planning sessions, and - what is suspicious - is that a vote on a subject so critical and so critical to so many county residents follows only a week of public notification and whatever time we get to speak on it tonight. Please: if you vote on this ill-conceived plan tonight, vote against it and send it back to the drawing board. . . ."

"First I want to voice my discontentment that Booker's Landing is back on. . . ." (Mr. Amore described his opposition to and difficulty in staying informed by the City on matters pertaining to Booker's Landing, a townhouse development.- JS).

"I'm concerned again that our focus - this uniform growth boundary is putting the cart before the horse. You justify your comprehensive plan by saying: 'Well, now that we have all this land, we have to justify it with our comprehensive plan. This is a very misguided attempt to do that.

"Back off. Take a second look, move the boundaries back. Take a review of the comprehensive plan. Clearly, there are a lot of folks in the county who don't like this. I would agree wholeheartedly with Nancy Perry (Correction: "Beth Haney" - JS), who came in to read a statement for William Perry ... inaudible .... They are all neighbors of mine. There are other members of the city here who are going to speak tonight about their discontent over this plan as well.

"I think the focus of this Council needs to be on the town. The town as it exists now, not the town as it exists twenty years from now. If you guys want to create roadways and parks out in the subdivisions that lead to the big boxes you are going to create the very thing that you don't want - and that is a bedroom community. . . ."

"We're going to have parks out in the subdivisions because developers are proffering land in exchange for impact fees, so we can have parks for the residents in those subdivisions.

"Am I going to drive out to Huntfield to use their park? I don't think so. . . . We've forgotten about the downtown proper, about the businesses. I own a business in town. As a matter of fact, I own a couple of buildings in town. I'm a little concerned that we're thinking about what's out there, and not what's here . . . ."

"I didn't know I had a dog in this fight until someone showed me the map. I live on Marlow Road , (pointing that direction as far as you can go) . . . As far as I know I was in the county and I was in a no-growth zone, rural ag. But according to the map, I think I'm in the "Fun and Entertainment District" now. (The map has an "Entertainment Zone"- JS) (Laughter).

"I don't know what you have in store for me, but I'll listen. I'll tell you what. I'm going to be different than the rest of these people. I want you to come to Marlow Road. I've been down there since 1987. In twenty years we've gotten one shovel of asphalt to fill a pothole. That's it. We've had nothing. You folks have a lot of money you want to spread around and want to come down my way. Give us a new road. I'll take one. It's going to come anyway.

"To a more serious point: I look around the Council here and I know several of you. I know you personally. I've known you all my life, because I've been here all my life. And I truly can say I don't think that you knew what that plan was when it came forward. I don't think you did. I don't think that you could face the people that you grew up with in this community and say: 'That's what we want to do.' I don't think you knew that.

"I think you hired a planning consultant. They gave you a plan. It came through. You publicized it. But you didn't know it was that. And you didn't know it was this. I don't think you can do that. I don't think you could face the people that you've known all your life and say: 'That's what we think we've got in store for you.' I don't believe that's the truth. I know you personally and I don't think you're going to be that way. I'm going to defer to your good judgment tonight. I'm going to ask you to think about those things and go back to where you started and say: 'This is not really what we want to do.'

"Not all plans are perfect. Not all plans have to go through the way they go through. They can be revised, redrawn, rethought. If you worked six months on it, work another six months on it. It doesn't have to happen tonight in that fashion. There's just too many people. And I looked up today and tried to find this form of government and I couldn't do it. You folks can vote us anyway you want to tonight, but there's not a one of us in this room can vote you. We're all outside the city limits. I tried as I may. I couldn't find anything, anywhere that could tell me that form of government.

"But that's not the point. That's the point (Mr. Stoneberger pointed to the Town's land use map.- JS). That plan. It's very, very ambitious. Anybody that's lived in this county as long as we have, knows that is an ambitious plan. I think it's over-ambitious. I know that Charles Town has to grow and have economic development. I know you have to have industrial development, but from Marlow Road to Earle Road seems a bit more than all of us could handle. So I'm going to defer to your good judgment. I'm going to defer to your history in this county. And I'm going to ask you to turn around and look at that map and say: 'Is that what we really had in store for the rest of these folks in Jefferson County when we said we need this UGB (or whatever it is) and plan? . . ."

"I'm not a resident in the area that you're talking about, but I do own some acreage there. I'm glad to see the rooster finally woke a couple of you all up. You finally raised your heads. Seems to me so far everything that's been said fell on deaf ears. Like I say, half of you weren't even listening.

"I don't wish my small amount of land to be included in the city. I don't wish for the taxes. I don't wish for your sewers and water. I think the whole plan comes about because of one development. (Mr. DeAngelo appears to be referring to Thornhill, located near him - JS). So you can furnish water for them, you probably get their sewer plant, when it's finished for a measly dollar. They can walk away - the, uh, developers - they can write that off as a tax loss and walk away with their profits and their tax breaks. I think that's the whole majority idea of this of this ... inaudible ... as far as ... inaudible ... to the Shenandoah River. Like I say, I'd like to see you wake up and just throw these plans away. Thank you."

passed ...

"Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I support the other comments that have been made tonight, comments calling on the Council to start anew on a comprehensive plan that complies with state law.
Comments expressing dismay at the rushed ... inaudible ... of the urban growth boundary, at the failure to notify and involve citizens affected by the vote, at the disregard of the county's rural zones and historical heritage.

"I have watched this unfettered housing growth in this county over the last ten years. I have watched as housing development after housing development has gone up in helter-skelter fashion. I've watched as neither Charles Town nor the County has worked hard enough to bring businesses to the county. Housing developments do not grow the economic base for this county. Businesses do. Yet, I fear that the City, under its proposed growth boundary, would annex property-after-property for housing development, undermining, rather than enhancing the economic base, undermining in particular the tourism and recreation industries.

"People don't come to Jefferson County and Charles Town to look at miles of cookie-cutter housing developments. Looking at the urban growth boundary and listening to the comments tonight, it seems clear that the City planners are unaware of the significance of historic homes to the tourism industry, and unaware of the value of resources like the Shenandoah River to the recreation industry. Finally, I, like many others here, remain mystified about the proposed boundary, veering of course on Kabletown Road, to append the proposed Thornhill development. Many of us in this room have been protesting the density of this development for two years or more in the County development review process. I urge you not to intervene in the ongoing County review process. . . ."