By: Karen Sheehan
October 9, 2019
The Prince William County planning office and planning commission are once again encouraging residents to submit more comments on proposed changes to the county’s rural area – something citizens have been doing for six years now.
The problem is that not all citizen input is being considered or even acknowledged; not all county decision-makers are reviewing citizen input; and not all citizen input can even be found. Still, the citizen input that has been documented has been consistent.
For example, the May 2014 Rural Preservation Study Report, now posted on the planning office website, contains some of that feedback. As documented by consultant ERM:
- The majority of respondents – 61% — support 10-acre lots for residential development in the rural crescent. More than half — 53% — say it’s a good way to protect the environment. Almost half — 48% — view it as a reasonable balance between encouraging farming and allowing large-lot residential.
- Also, 60% of respondents say the current policy of no sewer in the rural crescent, except in emergency situations, is appropriate.
- Another majority – 68% — indicated they would be willing to pay more to help preserve land in the rural crescent, with 41% willing to pay up to $25 per household, and 38% willing to pay up to $50 per household.
But subsequent record-keeping of citizen input regarding the rural crescent is significantly lacking.
Public meetings were held through 2016 regarding comprehensive plan zoning text amendments related to the 2014 Rural Study. A purchase of development rights program was suggested. Citizens attended meetings, submitted comments on sticky notes, and sent in emails. None of those comments can be found on the planning website, and none of the suggestions were implemented.
Public meetings were again scheduled in 2018 because the board of supervisors wanted to pursue a comprehensive plan amendment for rural preservation policies and tools. Some meetings were held; some were canceled. Citizen input was again offered, but none of the feedback can be found on the planning office website.
Public meetings have also been held in 2019. Some, but not all, of the input from the most recent meetings can be found on the planning website.
During the June 24 meeting, county planning staff and their new consultants heard citizens vehemently complain that they are tired of repeatedly being asked the same questions and providing the same answers.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request for comments submitted since the July 30 meeting, the county provided a spreadsheet containing 646 emails, 89% of which expressed opposition to various development proposals for the rural area. After auditing this spreadsheet, I can attest that an additional 178 citizen emails submitted in August are missing from the county’s list.
Unfortunately, citizen stakeholders’ trust is completely broken on this issue. County officials have been given proof, time and again, of what the citizens want, but some county personnel appear to be ignoring it because they don’t like what it tells them.
Why continue to ask for even more citizen comments when thousands of comments already provided are being lost, marginalized and ignored?
For six years, the majority of citizen input regarding the rural crescent has been consistent:
- Do not change the county’s rural crescent growth boundary.
- Do not change the sewer policy.
- Do not permit rural residential density to exceed one home per 10 acres.
- Do fund and implement a PDR program for permanent land preservation, with conservation easements managed by third-party land trusts.
- Do incentivize all types of agriculture in the rural crescent to help farmers who want to farm.
At the upcoming Oct. 23 planning commission work session, citizens will be permitted to make comments and ask questions. I am sure people will show up to do exactly that — again. I am also convinced that many engaged citizens will again send emails providing their input. I will probably submit a few more.
Do county officials believe they will get different results if they drag out the process and keep asking for input? They haven’t and they won’t. Really, how much more input is needed to make the right choice for your citizens?
Please, either implement the above majority-supported choices for our rural crescent, or stop this process. Cancel CPA 2018-00009 and DPA 2020-00001 and advise the public that both the consultants’ recommendations and the planning office’s plan, as released on Sept. 17, have been rejected.
The writer is a resident of the rural crescent.