By Kim Hosen
August 18, 2019
According to the Prince William County website, the board of supervisors directed the planning office to “conduct research on appropriate planning tools to help in the preservation of open space in rural areas.” Their first step was to commission a Rural Preservation Area Study, which the planning office has been reviewing since 2014.
Currently, staff has started a process to update the comprehensive plan for the rural crescent to achieve these goals with a focus on cluster development, transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights programs.
The proposed PDR program is in the current comprehensive plan and should be undertaken by the county. PDR programs have been shown to be an effective tool in preservation of farmland.
Unfortunately, the other recommendations and the process itself fails to focus on the stated goals. The proposed changes do not follow the board’s direction for transferring residential development out of the rural area, and instead create areas of increased density within the existing rural crescent boundaries. Also, the planning office’s interaction with the public is problematic. They have consistently shared little information and have not provided answers to direct questions.
Some information shared at the planning office staff’s July 30 public meeting was misleading and/or in conflict with information previously shared with supervisors, such as the location of proposed areas that would receive new development under a TDR program. That new development was supposed to be directed toward areas with mixed-use development near transit nodes, not inside the rural crescent in a so-called “transition ribbon,” as is now proposed.
In addition, at the July 30 meeting, planning office staff:
• Incorrectly told the public that the county’s current rural cluster ordinance allows access to public sewer for new cluster developments in the rural crescent.
• Proposed to remove 13,800 acres from the rural crescent to create the transition ribbon that would allow sewer and increased densities, and erroneously presented that acreage as 4,011 acres. There was no information provided on how this would improve the county’s ability to preserve open space, address infrastructure shortfalls in the development area, or attract economic investments.
• Proposed a TDR program that would move densities from one area of the rural crescent to the new transition ribbon located within the rural crescent, rather than areas with adequate infrastructure, thus ignoring the opportunity to benefit from transit-oriented development.
• Were not able to answer a question as to whether land protected through a PDR program would qualify for the county’s land-use tax assessment program.
• Stated that unbuilt acreage in cluster developments as small as 12 acres would be placed into conservation easements held by a third party, with no verification that a land trust would accept properties of this size.
• Omitted information on incentives for agricultural or rural economic development opportunities.
We believe this current process will not develop incentivized action strategies that meet the board’s strategic plan objectives. The current process appears focused on residential development rather than considering how to promote agriculture to meet the board’s strategic plan goal that 35% of county tax revenue come from businesses or commercial property. Staff is not addressing the unique characteristics of our rural area to incentivize business, advance smart-growth opportunities and maintain high quality-of-life conditions.
We believe county staff’s current direction focuses on facilitating residential development in the rural crescent, including the extension of sewer, rather than incentivizing any segments of the agricultural industry. For this reason, it does not meet either the smart-growth goals in the comprehensive plan nor the board of supervisors’ stated objectives.
We respectfully request that the board of county supervisors end this flawed process and instead maintain current densities in the rural crescent. We also request supervisors initiate a PDR program, as called for in the current comprehensive plan, as well as review rural area incentive opportunities that do not require increased densities or access to public sewer, as originally requested by the board of county supervisors.
The writer is the executive director of the Prince William Conservation Alliance.
This letter was sent to the Board of County Supervisors on August 12, 2019, signed by the following:
Kim Hosen – Prince William Conservation Alliance
Elena Schlossberg – Coalition to Protect Prince William County
Martin Jeter – Mid-County Civic Association
Melinda Masters – Nokesville Civic Association