One notable issue was the inadequacy of sidewalks in the proposed West Creek Village development. The committee analyzed the revised sketch plat, which includes 13 single-family homes and 148 multifamily townhomes. Noteworthy was the absence of sidewalks in the single-family home area and on the north side of Creekside Lane. This sparked considerable discussion among committee members who were worried about pedestrian safety and accessibility, especially in a densely populated community. The lack of sidewalks was a deviation from previous proposals that had included both trails and sidewalks.

These deficiencies were highlighted as problematic given the development’s density. Committee members questioned the connectivity of the proposed pedestrian pathways with existing sidewalks in the neighboring developments, expressing dissatisfaction with the current plans. The absence of crosswalks further compounded these concerns, prompting members to stress the importance of ensuring adequate pedestrian infrastructure to meet residents’ needs.

The conversation then shifted to the parkland dedication component of the proposal, which involved a 0.253-acre Tot Lot. The committee expressed a preference for receiving cash in lieu of this parkland, citing that the proposed Tot Lot did not meet community expectations for open space. One member described the Tot Lot as “a little underwhelming,” given the area’s density and the potential number of young families. The Tot Lot’s location was also problematic, being approximately a mile from the West Village and only slightly closer to the future Marsh Hollow park development, which currently lacks any facilities.

The committee discussed the possibility of alternative uses for the Tot Lot area, such as a picnic space, but acknowledged size constraints. The conversation also addressed the absence of neighborhood amenities like community rooms or pools, which are commonly found in other developments. This absence was seen as a missed opportunity to enhance community engagement and recreational opportunities.

The meeting also touched on the recent 127% increase in membership fees at the Victoria Rec Center. The new rates, effective January 1, 2025, have stirred discussion among community members both online and in-person. The increase was deemed necessary to sustain the facility, which operates without tax dollar support, and to cover maintenance, repairs, and future improvements. The committee compared the previous unsustainable rates, which ranged from $5 to $10 per month, to those of similar facilities. While some members seemed to understand the rationale behind the increase, the decision remained a contentious topic among the community.

As the meeting progressed, the committee reviewed the potential for trail connections and the integration of pedestrian infrastructure. Members emphasized the need for sidewalks on both sides of the street in the townhome areas to facilitate safe and accessible movement. The proposal for a looped trail around the wetlands was mentioned, though buffer requirements between the wetlands and property lines could limit this possibility. Members agreed that exploring the feasibility of such a trail could enhance the walkability of the area.

The discussion about sidewalks and trails extended to potential connections to County Road 10. The plans included a dark gray line, raising questions about its purpose—whether it was a temporary road or an access point. This highlighted the importance of ensuring that as development continues, adequate pedestrian infrastructure is in place to support the growing community.