But as fans readied the plastic champagne glasses and bottles of sparkling cider in the lobby outside board chambers, the three supervisors who formed the core opposition to County Executive Bern Ewert’s “Rural Crescent” initiative called the plan “seriously flawed” and looked forward to chances to tinker with the details. They were joined by a handful of angry rural residents, some of whom are threatening secession from the county because of the changes.
The bickering shows that debate over Prince William’s long-term future is hardly finished with yesterday’s vote, with both sides gearing up to fight in the trenches of small print.
“I am for a rural crescent . . . but I’m not for this rural crescent,” said Supervisor David A. Rutherford (R-Occoquan), who said last week that he expected to vote for the plan. “This plan virtually slams the door on 80,000 acres in the county. . . . The long-term effects of the plan will be profound and bad.”
Rutherford was joined by fellow Supervisors Loring B. “Ben” Thompson (R-Brentsville) and Edgar S. Wilbourn (R-Gainesville), all of whom decried the plan as a devastating blow to rural residents and to the rural districts they represent. Thompson’s vote came despite a controversial concession in the plan to appease a vocal landowner in his district.
But the crowd and the board were dominated by supporters, who erupted in applause when the plan was approved. “This is historic,” said Supervisor Mary K. Hill (R-Coles), who sided with the majority. “This is a major step in the right direction for our county.”
The long-term plan cuts about 27,000 housing units from the maximum number that can be built in the county. It also sets aside about 80,000 acres — an area twice the size of the District — as a “Rural Crescent” stretching from the Quantico Marine Corps Base to the Loudoun County line, reserving it for farms and subdivisions with lot sizes of at least 10 acres. And over the next two years, the county will phase in new guidelines for voluntary impact fees, asking that developers pay as much as $15,668 a house toward the cost of schools, parks, libraries and fire service — five times the current amount.
The last component is the most irksome to developers and home builders, who argue that the higher fees will cripple the local economy and deflate land values as investors struggle to swallow the cost. But proponents argue that the amounts still don’t cover the actual public costs of new developments, which require additional infrastructure for the residents that they bring. “We need to bring this runaway sprawl under control,” said Tom Kinsolving, of the Manassas area.
To balance the spate of restrictions, Ewert and other county officials hope to lure more jobs and businesses with a series of incentives and special commercial zones.
Chairman Kathleen K. Seefeldt — whose earlier misgivings had cast doubt on the plan’s fate — provided the key swing vote, siding with Supervisors Hilda M. Barg (D-Woodbridge), Maureen S. Caddigan (R-Dumfries), John D. Jenkins (D-Neabsco) and Hill. “We’ve had a great deal of grass-roots citizen input,” said Seefeldt (D). “It does provide a better opportunity to manage growth on the residential side of the balance sheet.”
Several critics charged that the plan effectively divides the urban east from the rural west, where many residents believe they get slim county services in return for their tax dollars.
Patricia Bradburn, of Gainesville, who was involved with an anti-crescent group known as One Prince William, again raised a secession threat that had emerged briefly last spring — warning that “thousands of signatures have already been collected” on petitions seeking annexation to the City of Manassas. The silent majority still opposes the Rural Crescent,” Bradburn said. “It’s unfair for the eastern area to be impacted and the western area to be deprived of services taken for granted in the east. But the half-moon plan will divide us. It already has.”
Much of yesterday’s debate was dominated by how to deal with the Bristoe Station Historical Area south of Manassas, which is slated for as many as 558 houses designed in the style of a 19th-century village. The proposal was a compromise fashioned during negotiations between Thompson, who represents the area, and other supervisors.
Critics, such as Woodbridge preservationist Jan Cunard, argued vehemently against allowing that much development on the site of a Civil War battle and unmarked graveyard. Three board members also had opposed the idea, and — with Thompson voting against Ewert’s plan anyway — officials indicated that a task force might be formed to deal with the issue later. “Would they dig up Arlington” National Cemetery, Cunard asked, “to build houses on it?”
Our journalism keeps watch on Washington and the world.