(I was able to present some of this input in the 2 minutes permitted at the Planning Commission work session on October 23, 2019. Here is my complete input.)
On September 30, 2019 Planning Director Rebecca Horner told public meeting attendees that “the intent is not to promote development in the Rural Crescent.”
These words have been totally invalidated by behavior. Behavior is what tells the tale.
Our county planning commissioners and county board of supervisors started approving high density development projects within the boundaries of the Rural Crescent within just a few short years of its 1998 creation. These development behaviors have exponentially increased since then, right up to the present time. These special approvals and variances violate the purpose of the rural area, and erode the effectiveness of the Rural Crescent for the entire county.
Rural preservation in Prince William County is not possible with the latest recommendations from the planning office, nor with the current behaviors and practices of some on the county board of supervisors and planning commission.
Our current county Comprehensive Plan lists the following Purpose:
“PURPOSE of the Rural Area designation is to help preserve:”
- “the County’s agricultural economy and resources,”
- “the County’s agricultural landscapes and cultural resources,”
- “the quality of the groundwater supply,”
- “and the open space and rural character presently found there.”
The reasons for the establishment of the Rural Crescent, and its boundaries, are as valid today as they were when it was carved out in 1998.
- “Preserving some open space.”
- “Prevent sprawl” across the entire county.
- “Enable resources to be put towards aging and lacking infrastructure in the urban development area.”
- On top of that, a commitment was made to the citizens that the Rural Area would “ensure a high quality of life by ….providing large amounts of open space, particularly in preservation and conservation areas.”
The citizens who sought out homes in the Rural Crescent came to the area because they were told that the area would be preserved with low density housing, with no sewer, and with “agricultural economy and resources.”
I will point out that the business of farming in the Rural Area has no coverage in the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. This section is full of policies for development and redevelopment of all kinds, and mentions technology, tourism, retail, entertainment, and growing businesses. But never once mentions agriculture. This, for the Rural Area which comprises almost half of the county; in a county which designates that the first and foremost purpose of the Rural Area is “to help preserve the County’s agricultural economy and resources.”
Unfortunately, it is clear that a significant number of farmers are not looking to keep their land to farm it, but rather prefer to sell out to the highest bidder. That is a choice to which they are entitled. However, there is no obligation under current law, no obligation under county policy, and no requirement from a fairness perspective, to guarantee long-time and/or large property owners are given an entire retirement nest-egg for their property. Landowners are entitled to the current market value for their land when they sell. They are not entitled to zoning changes to help them change that market -getting county assistance to make more profit. If they are giving up on farming, it will be a loss to all of us – but that is their right and their choice.
This county does not have the resources to provide and maintain all the road, school, public services and other infrastructure that would be required if acres in the rural agricultural part of the county were to be developed at density levels only appropriate to the urban development area.
The county board of supervisors directed the county planning office to conduct the 2014 rural study. The planning office contracted Environmental Resources Management (ERM), out of Annapolis, MD to conduct the study.
A careful and complete read of ERM’s report (over 200 pages in total) puts on full display real preservation best practices and observations – best practices which are then ignored in their recommendations. This shows that the consultants acquiesced to pressure from county leadership to generate rural development justifications to benefit a few developers.
Here are direct quotes from the experts’ best practice input:
“Sewer and water policy is an important component of land use and preservation planning.”
“Sewer policy helps define the Rural Area.”
“Sewer policy is an important component of rural preservation. Extending sewer to large parts of the Rural Area would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan’s overall vision for the Rural Area. Accessibility to public sewer can allow for a scale of development that is more intense than that which is appropriate for the Rural Area.”
“Extension of public sewer … could facilitate a scale of development that would be incompatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and would increase demand for public facilities.”
“Cluster developments on sewer across large parts of the Rural Area would not create an area that, overall, would feel “rural.”
“Land served by sewer can generally accommodate higher densities and, as such, development on sewer may result in greater overall impacts to the environment when considering the larger amount of runoff from increased impervious areas as well as impacts associated with the increased number of vehicle trips from the larger number of homes.”
“While large numbers of septic systems are not desirable from an environmental perspective, the current 10-acre minimum lot size does allow a “cushion” for septic systems in that such large lots provide more land for dissipating environmental effects compared to smaller sized lots (such as one or three acre lots).”
“…do not recommend extending public sewer throughout the Rural Area, particularly to those areas dominated by farming, because accessibility to public sewer can allow for a scale of development that is more intense than that which is appropriate for the rural character and economy of the Rural Area.”
“Extension of sewer throughout the Rural Area would be counter to the Comprehensive Plan’s intent with respect to sprawl.”
“Land preservation can be fiscally positive in that by avoiding extensive development in the Rural Area, the County will not have to spend money providing schools, roads and other public facilities to a scattered rural population.”
“Sewer policy is key to preserving the Rural Area.”
Our county planning office has now, instead, cherry-picked development-focused content from the 2014 report to use as justification for their intention to break apart the Rural Crescent and create suburban sprawl across the entire county. Careful reviews of the planning office 2019 June-proposed, and then July-recommended, Rural Plans reveal that the weight and substance of what is being put forward is on high-density development, and incentives for speculators and developers. The July CR-1 recommendation is simply a renamed TDR-A development scheme from the June proposal. CR-1 will become the ever-expanding development transitional ribbon throughout the Rural Crescent, as every other landowner, speculator, and developer will want the same treatment as the last to get their project approved.
Why is the planning office pushing a “development” plan in the Rural Crescent, when there are approximately 14,000 acres of undeveloped land in the development area, which is more than sufficient for all types of housing to meet the projected growth of Prince William County for decades to come?
Why is our planning office ignoring Metropolitan Washington COG’s recently enacted Visualize 2045 regional housing policy for our county to reduce traffic, by growing housing at 6 activity centers in PWC, none of which are in the Rural Crescent?
Why isn’t the county planning office concerned about abiding by the Comprehensive Plan policies already in place to protect the citizens who bought into the Rural Crescent from being swallowed up by sprawl development, and to ensure that tax dollars are focused on efficient and effective growth throughout the County, particularly in the development area?
The problem is that the governance and management of our county is not trusted – in fact, has proven it cannot be trusted. A line was drawn in 1998 to preserve the county’s rural area. Zoning was established to enforce that line. Preservation tools were recommended. What we have experienced over the last 21 years is that the line has been ignored time and again. Planning office, planning commissioners, and board supervisors have folded to pressure to change zoning, and have abdicated their responsibility to protect that line. And no rural preservation tools have been implemented for 21 years.
Many farmers and speculators spoke to the board on the afternoon of October 15, 2019.
I share the farm owner’s concern about saving farmland and preserving agriculture in the Rural Crescent. I agree with the farmer who wants effective tools in the toolbox for the Rural Crescent. I am in alignment with the landowners who want an effective process to create a good plan which can endure for the next 20, 40, 60 years – and more. I, too, want contiguous open space in the Rural Crescent, and throughout the county. I also want a win for everybody, like so many of the farmers said.
I agree with the farmer who said: “This is getting old. We have to go farther, think farther ahead.”
We need to move beyond the Rural Area boundary line being the only land preservation policy in place.
Some large land-owner gamblers are complaining that they interpreted the 1998 Comp Plan to indicate that “the Rural Crescent had a 20 year expected time frame before the rural area is needed for residential expansion. So in short, it was our belief that the Rural Crescent was temporary.” This county’s rural area, the Rural Crescent, is not temporary.
I do not agree with the two lady land speculators who want to turn the Gainesville area into another Reston town area, with the surrounding rural acres and farmland being turned into dense suburban bedroom community subdivisions. This is not what your county citizens want. Prince William County already has business areas which should be supported and enhanced by you and all our elected and appointed officials, rather than overlooked or ignored. The planning commissioners, planning office and board of supervisors must consistently and continuously hold the line in the rural area, and redirect developers to focus on the development area as the place to make their money, to create vibrant urban areas in Prince William County with businesses and job centers to benefit the entire county.
Prince William County and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), Vision 2045 growth projections are that PWC development plans already in the works and/or about to be adopted for the Development Area will produce sufficient dwelling units for our county’s residential needs into 2045. Our county Planning Office works with MWCOG on the adopted regional housing policy. Their recommended plans for the Rural Crescent run exactly counter to this recently enacted policy, which they helped to form. There is NO NEED to add more housing in the Rural Crescent.
The county policies and decision-makers need to dis-incentivize developers from Rural Crescent projects, and rather, motivate developers to pursue in-fill, rejuvenation, and new projects in the development area of the county, which will benefit the greatest number of county residents – your constituents.
For effective rural preservation I support:
- Enforcement and continuance of the current rural area boundary
- Enforcement and continuance of the current no-sewer policy within the rural area boundary
- Enforcement and continuance of the current rural area lot size zoning
- Implementation of a funded PDR program, with permanent conservation easements managed by 3rd party land conservation trusts, and no 25 year extinguishment clause
- Implementation of a TDR sending area program for the rural area, following the current sewer policy and lot size zoning, with permanent conservation easements, managed by 3rd party land conservation trusts, and no 25 year extinguishment clause
- Robust agribusiness and agritourism incentives for businesses to operate within the rural area, with no sewer extensions
- Creative septic and open space preservation solutions for housing on large land parcels for farmers and other landowners who want to realize a benefit from selling their land
I do not support:
- TDR receiving areas in any part of the rural area
- CR-1 zoning change in the rural area
- Sewer extension to any part of the rural area
True rural preservation is possible for Prince William County. But only if you, the planning commissioners, appointed “to advise the board of supervisors on all matters related to the orderly growth and development of Prince William County,” appropriately hold the line with development requests related to the Rural Crescent. And only if you recommend prompt implementation of workable, attractive, and enforceable open space preservation tools and agricultural incentives for our county.
—————————
NOTE: To ensure that this citizen input is included for-the-record, and to contribute to a comprehensive review of the impacts and issues being raised, the distro for this message includes the PWC Planning Office, the PWC Planning Commissioners, the PWC Board of County Supervisors, the PWC County Executive, and the Clerk of the Planning Commission.
Please ensure these complete comments are included in the county record.
Karen Sheehan
Gainesville district