Dear Chairman Milne and fellow Planning Commissioners,
For nearly a decade the community has been opposed to Mid County Park and Estates (now repurposed as The Preserve at Long Forest Pak). It wasn’t a good plan then, and it isn’t a good plan now. They say the third time is the charm, but this may be the fourth time the community has come out in opposition. Enough already.
Why?
What is the question I am asking? Why do Developers believe they alone should be able to dictate our entire comprehensive plan for almost half a million people based on their personal wants and desires. Based on ONE developer’s application, our county is considering undercutting our most unique and successful land use tool that has played a key role in protecting citizens from the most negative impacts of sprawl.
Look no further than page 3 from the Staff Report:
Mid-County Park & Estates Homes CPA Request in 2012 – When a comprehensive plan amendment for Mid-County Park & Estate Homes, CPA #PLN2012-00255 was submitted in 2012, the Board recognized this represented a significant change to the Rural Area and felt that it would be better to complete a broader review of existing Rural Area policies. This was the impetus for the Board’s initiation of the 2014 Rural Area Preservation Study.
The Rural “Preservation” (more like development) Study has NOT been approved by the BoCS, and that is likely because there has been significant concern expressed by the majority of residents to key proposals. An overwhelming margin of PWC residents, opposed high density Cluster Development and Sewer extension into the Rural Crescent. And yet, this current application includes the most concerning aspects of the now “stale” study form 2014. What staff has conveniently left out of this report is after months of round tables and public meetings, by a margin of 10-1, with over one thousand comments from the community, collected over a span of almost 6 months, citizens wanted to protect the Rural Crescent and promote more farming and open space incentives, specifically a PDR program and an improved land assessment value.
Look no further than the debacle of “9B” last week in the Economic Development’s Resolution to provide critical financial assistance to struggling small businesses. Staff found itself in the midst of a maelstrom. Developers on the Economic Task Force literally snuck in the Bi County Parkway among other egregious proposals. Citizens are tired of coming out, again, and again, and again, over the same bad “zombie” proposals that just won’t stay dead and buried. Mid County Parks and Estates (Preserve at Long Forest)is a perfect example. Citizens are tired of Developers having access to Staff and Planning that cuts out much needed transparency.
Enough already.
Staff has instead regurgitated the applicant’s erroneous claims. More than 90% of this development application is the Rural Crescent, and of that 90%, almost 25% of that land is sensitive environmental resource land that is unbuildable. Which coincidentally is also ALL the “park” land. The numbers on page 28 are conflating Rural Crescent allowable density with SRR Cluster! The plain facts are purposefully obfuscated. The actual allowable dwelling units are closer to 39 units total and the applicant wants 118, more than triple the allowable number. But what is almost worse, is the misleading manner by which this proposal and staff report is written.
As a citizen I am so disappointed.
Here are my questions.
1) Why is a stale Rural Study that has NOT formally been adopted being referenced as the template for a high-density rural crescent development? Based on that fact alone this application must be rejected.
2)Why is the high-density development that does NOT meet our own strategic smart growth initiatives even being considered for a rezoning approval by staff?
What is “smart growth”? Almost nothing in this plan as defined by recognized national standards:
Ten common Smart Growth Principles have been concisely identified by the national Smart Growth Network as:
- Mix land uses
- Take advantage of compact building design
- Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
- Create walkable neighborhoods
- Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
- Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
- Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
- Provide a variety of transportation choices
- Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective
- Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions
3)Why does the same language and reasons for approval presented to the community by the Developer appear in a report created by our “independent ” PWC Staff?
4)Avendale and Parks at Piedmont have been touted by the applicant as examples of the rural crescent being rezoned as excuse to approve this application. Why is staff using these very same examples without including why they are, in fact, VERY different from this application.
A) Avendale was rezoned and removed from the Rural Crescent because of a road realignment. In fact, there was such an outcry from the community Avendale would be used as an excuse down the road to rezone other Rural Crescent land that the Board of Supervisors immediately passed a unanimous resolution Avendale was NOT to be used as precedent in the future and that they “reaffirmed the boundaries of the rural crescent”.
B)Parks at Piedmont is primarily in the Development Area and the land that was preserved was already within the rural crescent along with other ER parcels. The additional approved housing units were originally commercially zoned long-range use NOT rural crescent.
5) Where is the equity in this CPA and concurrent rezoning? How does this further our new goals as a community to look at these kinds of development through a lens of equity?
I could spend days going through this application page by page and pointing out problems. But in the end, the core reasons for its continued denial remain the same as in 2012, 2014, and 2016, and now. Staff misses a critical reason the Rural Crescent was adopted in 1998, they miss why the Rural Crescent continues to engender support from the majority of residents, not only for the country side open space appeal, but because it serves as our best most reliable smart growth tool. The Rural Crescent is Prince William County’s land use diamond! We need to stop figuring out ways to dismantle and instead, shout from the roof tops, “Look at what Prince William County has been able to preserve”. The Rural Crescent is what sets us apart from Loudoun, Fairfax, Fauquier, and Stafford.
There are no special circumstances that would allow for this CPA/Rezoning. We must all play by the same rules in order to implement reliable and consistent planning. This Developer bought this parcel knowing full well it was in the Rural Crescent and understood those restrictions therein. It’s time he accepted no for an answer.
Please deny both CPA2020-00008, Preserve at Long Branch (Formerly Mid-County Parkand Estate Homes) and #REZ2017-00013.
Stay Healthy!
Warmly,
Elena Schlossberg
Coalition to Protect PWC