Those heavily engaged and knowledgeable residents who attended both the June 24 and July 30 Public Input Meetings regarding the Rural Area, are probably not terribly surprised at the tactics employed by the Planning Office and its “moderators” at the Hylton Center.  It was clear that the meeting had precious little to do with soliciting “input” but rather was designed to divide and conquer, squash opposition and stifle those who had the temerity to question the all-knowing experts in the Planning Office (or more likely those elected and high-ranking staff officials driving the development train).

The tone was set early by the lead moderator who refused to acknowledge questions and was buttressed by the uniformed police presence as well as those in plainclothes and tactical gear.  According to the Planning Director, the vocal residents of the County are viewed as an angry mob at public meetings and the police presence was required as she had received “dozens” of complaints from attendees of the June 24 meeting who claimed they didn’t feel safe.  I would suggest that the only fear anyone should have had at that meeting was getting between two 70+ year old ladies on opposite sides of the Rural Area spectrum and potentially getting nailed by one of their handbags had they come to “blows”.  No Rebecca, that presence wasn’t about security, it was about intimidation, a strategy that was quite frankly unnecessary and was actually counter-productive.

As to the materials presented for comment, it is clear that the last several years worth of public commentary have been for naught as the Planning Office didn’t hear, read or incoporate a single thing that had been said or written.

At the June meeting, residents demanded The Planning Office provide its draft plans.  At the Hylton Center, after years of waiting, they finally did just that.  They did not however present a plan to preserve the Rural Area, rather they presented what most had feared, a thinly disguised and poorly crafted Rural Development Plan with little consideration of the impacts county-wide and by that I mean in both the Rural and the Development Areas.

Rural Cluster Options

Since the inception of Rural Area Study and the first public input sessions more than SIX YEARS AGO, the majority of county residents have been clear in their expectations.  No higher density clusters and no sewer in the Rural Area.  Those are the two principal non-negotiable issues for most.  Apparently the Planning Office has elected to accede to the wishes of a handful of farmers and developers, thus ignoring the express desires of the vast majority of the county’s population, those that will ultimately pay for any land use decisions with their tax dollars.

Let’s take a dive into some of the Planning Office’s numbers.  I will start with the biggest lie of all, that the Rural Area constitutes 117,000 acres or about 54% of the County.  Despite having been told over and over again and sometimes admitting it, the acreage encompassed by Marine Corps Base Quantico, Manassas Battlefield Park, Prince William Forest Park, Conway Robinson State Forest and Prince William County owned open space should not be part of the equation as they are not eligible for development on any scale.  In truth, the Rural Area constitutes 73,000 acres or about 35% of the County.  Of that 73,000 acres only about 10,000 acres (14% of the Rural Area and 4.6% of the County as a whole are being “actively farmed”.  Of that 10,000 acres, 4,000 (5% of the Rural Area and 1.84% of the County as a whole) are held by Dutchland Farms and Kettlewind Farms which are, on information and belief, controlled by the various members of the House family.

Thus, it certainly appears that the “plan” presented by the Planning Office has been carefully tailored to meet the needs of a handful of county residents who want to pad their 401Ks at the expense of county taxpayers.  I would suggest that by and large they are the speculators who held out too long during the housing boom in an attempt to maximize their payday and now want to recover the opportunity they lost a decade ago with a more pliant BOCS and prior to the departure of the Brentsville District Champion of the their cause (sorry Wally, the shoe fits).

Option A, adding sewer to the existing cluster provisions would likely ensure the construction of a majority of the potential additional 2,784 units, units that would be located in the area of the county with the least supporting infrastructure.

Option B, sewer and increased cluster density, is effectively the Planning Office doubling down and threatening the residents with 5,067 units, an 82% increase over Option A.  (BTW that provides for roughly 1,557 more new students than Option A under PWC’s ridiculously low standards, its likely more like 2,335 new students)

The cynical side of me suspects Option B is the Planning Office’s stick to force acceptance of Option A as the lesser of two evils but not what is actually desired by residents.

It is interesting to note that the Planning Office asserts “The existing rural cluster ordinance does not provide an incentive to develop with cluster provision” and that “Sewer provisions could incentivize the use of this alternative”.  I say interesting because under the current provisions of the County ordinances more than 15,000 acres have already been subdivided into 10 acre lots of which we were quickly able to identify nearly 12,000 acres and more than 1000 lots.  By those numbers, it would seem that the current dynamic has worked rather well, it just doesn’t gin up the profit potential that a handful of land owners would prefer.

Which brings us to the crux of their argument, namely that it is not profitable (enough) to develop their parcels as 10 acre lots.  Well it seems to have worked out rather well for those that have gone before them.  I would remind those landowners that they are only entitled to densities or uses permitted under their existing zoning.  They are permitted to seek rezonings but they are not entitled to said rezonings being approved with higher densities.  They have no more right to rezone their farms for higher density zoning than suburban homeowners do to rezone their lots for the construction of six story apartment buildings in their neighborhoods.  Governmental action, particularly with respect to land use, has to give consideration to ALL parties impacted.

Transfer of Development Rights Programs (TDRs)

We now transition from the ridiculous to the sublime.  After reviewing the Planning Office’s materials, I am convinced that nobody in that office understands what they are, how they are supposed to work or what the statutory requirements for establishing such programs entail.

Option A would provide the right to purchase development rights from identified sending areas (large parcels in the Rural Area) and to transfer them to identified receiving areas in the transitional ribbon (also in the Rural Area). This would allow for the transfer of 2643 lots to 4011 acres in the transition ribbon creating a new density of roughly 0.66 units per acre.

Option B is simply Option A on steroids and the developer’s wet dream. In this scenario the Planning Office geniuses chose to roll back the densities to those existent in 1981 (almost twenty years before the creation of the Rural Crescent), allowing for the transfer of 10,390 lots to those same 4011 acres, creating a new density of roughly 2.59 units per acre or your typical subdivision when you factor in roads and storm water facilities.  (In this case Option B provides for a total of more than 7000 new students, a budget busting number)

Again, in crafting these proposals, it would appear that those in the Planning Office weren’t listening to the public and more importantly, not listening to the BOCS.  All discussion with respect to TDRs and particularly the receiving areas has revolved around establishing the receiving area where they make the most sense, ie: in close proximity to transit nodes and those areas prime for walkable communities.

By establishing densities at 0.4 acres per unit these TDR programs would likely devalue existing developments they would abut regardless of whether they were 10 acre lots adjacent to the Transition Ribbon or SRR areas with a target 2.5 acre average housing density.  That of course is but one factor that should have been taken into account when staff drafted these brilliant measures, other include infrastructure costs, traffic, public safety, etc. all of which appear to have been given short shrift at best.

Further, judging by the content of subsequent communications from the Planning Office, it is clear that those are questions and concerns they willingly failed to consider prior to drafting the plan and will (they promise) attend to as the proposal move forward.  Typical PWC planning, create a desired outcome and then consider the implications it presents.  Those same communications also seem to indicate that the Planning Office has absolutely no concept as to how TDR programs work under the Commonwealth’s statutory framework.

Lest anyone be surprised, such a lack of comprehensive planning strategies is nothing new in PWC, consider that the Comp Plan as a whole is reviewed, amended and adopted in a piecemeal fashion, replete with conflicting chapters and strategies.

What makes the TDR proposals particularly dangerous is the lack of County control once the program, sending areas and receiving area are established.  Bear in mind that upon establishment, the program assumes a by-right condition involving private parties with little to no County oversight or approval process.

We have met the enemy and they reside in the McCoart Center, not that anyone should be terribly surprised.  Concerned residents need to be prepared to keep their feet to the fire, voice their opinions loudly and often and make every effort to ensure that senior staff does not fast track these proposals to ensure that they are voted on prior the the lame duck BOCS leaving office.