Urbanization & Industrialization of the Western End of Prince William County
From data center sprawl to villages, hamlets, ‘activity centers,’ and corridor redevelopment with high-density residential housing, the Pathway to 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update appears to be a plan to urbanize and industrialize the entirety of the Western End of Prince William County.
Occoquan Reservoir Salinity 112221
CITIZENS TOWN HALL – APRIL 28, 2022
Access all the details by going to this page: (continuously updated)
Comprehensive Plan Update – Pathway to 2040
Also check out everything available from this page: (continuously updated)
Parks – Silver Lake
https://thederecho.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-bocs-and-county-attorney-put-all.html
Prince William Conservation Alliance – Rural Crescent
Learn all about the Rural Crescent at the Prince William Conservation Alliance site: here
Historic Thoroughfare and The Settlement
Coalition To Save Historic Thoroughfare – A Town Under Siege | Facebook
Check out all the Thoroughfare and The Settlement (Carver Rd.) related news articles and letters in THE LATEST….and ARCHIVES on the home page – click on News Coverage and Public Letters to access them all.
*************************************************
Frank Washington – Spokesperson
April 25, 2021
Thank you for joining us today as we continue to move forward with our Thoroughfare preservation efforts. I’d like to take a moment to update you on recent events, as well as clarify some messaging I’ve seen regarding the cemeteries and our access.
First, I want to confirm the bulldozing of the Scott cemetery. It is recorded as holding 75 to 100 graves. Graves that are believed to be that of slaves, freed slaves and Native Americans. Although the graves themselves still hold the remains of our ancestors, as far as we currently know, any and all markers or identifying signs of those graves no longer exist. The land was bulldozed, the gravesites desecrated. Our worst fears are now our reality.
A gravesite which sat on the land right beside the very road which was blocked by a gate and a boulder leading to another ancestral gravesite. I cannot go into more detail at this point, but I will say that the destructive actions regarding the bulldozing of the Scott cemetery is currently under investigation by the County and relevant entities.
Prior to the discovery of the desecrated Scott cemetery, the Brewery was cited with 3 violations of grading and land disturbance for that site on which the Scott cemetery is located. They did not obtain a land disturbance permit or any other required approval permits before taking those actions of clearing the land. They have been given until April 27th to become compliant and correct the violation. Had they gone through the proper procedures perhaps the Scott cemetery would still be at peace.
I want to clarify as well, that since our first press conference i have read on more than one occasion that the Brewery has stated we have always had a second access to our Peyton community cemetery that they blocked entrance to. This is not true. The Brewery is referring to their entrance into the brewery. They are now saying that by entering their brewery entrance, traveling completely through their brewery, to a back road behind the brewery and crossing over a field, we can gain access to our cemetery. It is not only a misleading statement to the media, but it is a statement to try and excuse the inexcusable actions and blockage of the one and only road access we have ever had to the Peyton community cemetery.
I would also like to point out that the bulldozing of the Scott cemetery coincided with the blockage of the road leading to the Peyton community cemetery.
To clarify the statements I have also read recently made by Kemper Quaintance representing W. M. Tinder Inc.
He states that his client, W. M. Tinder has ”allowed” descendants to visit the cemetery for the last 30 years. Never at any point and time were we made aware, or had any knowledge of anyone claiming ownership of a family and community cemetery. Not until this recent blockage of access by the Broad Run Brewery. Never at any point and time were we informed that we were required to have permission to access our ancestors or lay anyone to rest alongside those ancestors in our community and family gravesite. Never at any point and time were we informed in any way that we could not continue usage of that cemetery as the community has for well over 200 years at the very least.
Kemper Quaintance states that a letter was sent out within the last few months to a nearby homeowner stating that no burials could take place unless we were granted permission. A letter which no one has any knowledge of receiving. Kemper Quantaince and or W. M. Tinder only came to our attention through the threats I received from them after repeated calls I made to the Broad Run Brewery to remove the blockage of our cemetery access. It is also relevant to note that Michelle Dewitt, the brewery owner, initially denied any connection or knowledge of Quaintance or Tinder. A statement that has been found not to be true.
There has to be accountablity for what has happened here. There are many questions that have yet to be answered. There is also another gravesite in question as to whether it still exists in the same vicinty of the gravesites we are speaking of.
We have also been made aware of and reminded that it is recorded that confederate and union soldiers are also buried in unmarked graves here in Thoroughfare. In fact, Confederate artifacts have been found close to the Fletcher/Allen cemetery. An area which is now being surveyed for tearing apart and the installation of 5 septic systems. Actions that threaten that family gravesite as well as the archeological significance of the property.
Thoroughfare’s story continues to grow.
In closing, I have to say that I have tried with every step I have taken to make this just about saving our collective history. Because the story of Thoroughfare is truly our collective history. But as much as I have tried not to, I have to admit and face the element of race in all of this. There are many techniques that have been used for decades to take black owned land. Some of those techniques remain legal to this day. I was stunned recently by an official that made that abundantly clear in an insensitive comment regarding our challenges here.
We are in a situation where there are laws and policies that sanction the extraction of property, history and resources from freed slave communities as well as Native Americans. History has shown us this forcefully time and time again.
Thoroughfare is in the throws of being taken from us. Once again a land, town and home established by slaves, freed slaves and Native Americans is under the threat of being taken and lost, due to greed, profit, and privilege.
Our land is our family. Our land is our history. Our gravesites tell our story of having a place of shelter, belonging and of peace here in Thoroughfare.
My questions to those in power are:
What value and respect are you placing on the lives that lie resting in peace here?
What value and respect do you place on the lives that have thrived and are still thriving here?
Where is your unified outrage over the desecration of the Scott cemetery and the attack on other family and historical gravesites here in Thoroughfare?
These are only a few of the questions that must be answered.
Yes, Thoroughfare is our collective history and we will continue to stand strong for preserving this history, but we cannot pretend that elements of race are not present in the minds and eyes of those who seem to think they have the superiority and the right to seek out, ..to take… And to wipe away this history, with no regard for the sacrifices of the lives that have passed on and are resting here.
Or for the lives that still exist here.
We within this Coalition to Save Thoroughfare, the Coalition to Save Carver Road, those involved with saving the Rural Crescent, our Native American ancestors, the NAACP, and many other cultural and religious supporters, stand strong and united in this connection of preserving our collective legacy and our collective history.
CITIZENS TOWN HALL – APRIL 28, 2022
VIDEO – April 28, 2022 Citizens Town Hall
DISPLAYS, SPEAKERS PRESENTATIONS AND REMARKS
DISPLAYS:
2. STRATEGIC PLAN Display for Town Hall 042822 Table 14
3. FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Display for Town Hall 042822 Table 14
4. 
5. Digital Gateway Study Area Map for Town Hall 042822 Table 12
6. Digital Gateway Myths Table 12
7. Digital Gateway Existing and Proposed Zoning Table 12
8. Digital Gateway Proposed Mobility Network Table 12
9. Bi-County Parkway map 010422 Table 4A
11. Mobility Map 030722 Table 4
12. Planning-DRAFT_Future_Transit_Alt_Map-2022_0317 Absurd!
13. MOBILITY MAPS Transportation Issues table 4
14. 
15. Community Poll Summary display for Town Hall 042822 Table 5
16. Long Range Land Use Map 021022 DRAFT_LRLU_3000_36x66 021022 Table 5
- Introduction – page 1 (Table 11)
- Activity Centers – pages 2 and 3 (Table 10)
- Haymarket, I66 and Route 29, Bethlehem Rd., Yorkshire, Liberia Ave, Fairgrounds, Potomac Mills, Dumfries
- Villages and Hamlets – pages 5 and 6
- Village: Nokesville (Table 3B)
- Hamlets: Woolsey, Catharpin, Lake Jackson, Greenwich, Brentsville) (Table 11)
- Residential Clusters – pages 7 and 8 (Table 2)
- Bull Run East, Haymarket West, Braemar-Patriot High School, Dove’s Landing, Kettle Run, Valley View
19. Haymarket Activity center facts Table 10
20. Villages and Hamlets paper Table 11
21. NOKESVILLE Industrial Corridor Map for Town Hall 042822 Table 3A
22. Nokesville information Table 3
23. RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERS table 2
SPEAKERS PRESENTATIONS & REMARKS:
25. Kim Hosen remarks Town Hall 042822
26. Elizabeth Ward Water and the Rural Crescent2
27. Elizabeth Ward Remarks: Green Risks: May 2022
28. Bill Wright Data Center Stats
29. Bill Wright Town Hall Remarks (4-28-22)
30. Vida Carroll Remarks Town Hall 042822
Frank Washington – Thoroughfare and Pageland threats to history
31. 
32. 
33. 
Comprehensive Plan Update – Pathway to 2040
County Pathway to 2040: Comprehensive Plan Update County web portal
The above link will take you to the Comp Plan adopted by the BOCS on December 13, 2022.
Unfortunately, historical County documents are not now found on that web portal. We attempt to maintain all critical, both currently posted and previously posted, documents here.
Pathway to 2040 – Review of the Long-Range Land Use Layer (arcgis.com) interactive map – updated with all applications referencing Pathway to 2040 Comp Plan update
Draft Interactive Map of Proposed Long Range Land Use – publicized 5/10/22 (Since this is ‘interactive,’ what is shown changes depending on what new has been submitted; ie: what is there in Sept. 2022 is different than what was seen when viewed in May 2022)
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS – LISTED IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:
Long Range Land Use Map updated Sept. 13 2022 DRAFT_Long Range Land Use Map Sept 13 2022
Long Range Land Use Chapter updated Sept. 2022 Draft Land Use Chapter-August 2022
Mobility Chapter updated Sept. 2022 Mobility Chapter Draft_August 22 2022
Electrical Utilities Services Chapter updated Aug 2022 Electrical Utilities Services Plan DRAFT High Power Transmission Lines Draft v 2022-08
Housing Chapter updated August 2022 Draft Housing Chapter-2022_08
Sewer Chapter updated August 2022 2nd Draft_Sanitary_Sewer-Clean Version-2022_08
Mobility Map 030722 Planning-Roadway_Segments_for_Consideration-2022_0303
Fairfax County Dept. of Planning & Development, Comment on Applicant 1st Submission 2/23/22
“Major Projects Timeline Graphic” picture (.jpg) released by Rebecca Horner, Acting Planning Director, on 2/19/22: 
Mobilitymap 021722 (with red circles for new changes)
Planning-Roadway_Segments_for_Consideration-2022_0217 (has been deleted from county web portal)
Draft Mobility Road Segment Map published 2/17/22 – link has been removed from county web portal
Mobility map from 021022 meeting display
Land Use Introduction 2022 0209 PWC Com Plan Public Meeting_LU Exhibits
Draft Mobility Chapter dated 2/7/22
Draft Land Use Map published 2/1/22
Comp Plan 020122 Rural Area – Draft Rural Area Placetype Maps
Draft Electrical Utility Service Plan dated 2/1/22
Draft Land Use Chapter dated 1/31/22
Draft Housing Chapter dated 1/25/22
“Scope and Schedule Differences for the Data Center Projects” memorandum from Parag Agrawal, prior PWC Planning Director, dated 9/28/21
BAE “Data Center Market Study” for PWC dated 10/20/21
2021-2024_Strategic_Plan-FINAL_0 10 2021
2014 Rural “Preservation” Study
See the proposals in the May 2014 Prince William County Rural Preservation Study Report:
here
2016 Proposed Changes
This map reflects 2016 proposed Gateway Corridor and Transitional Ribbon changes to the Rural Crescent:
2014 PWC Rural “Preservation” Study Report
This map reflects proposed Gateway Corridor and Transitional Ribbon changes to the Rural Crescent:
rural_crescent map 061616 proposed changes
See all proposals in the May 2014 Prince William County Rural Preservation Study Report: here
Access all available Rural Preservation Study documents at PWC Planning Office site: here
PWC Planning Office – Rural Study docs
Access all available Rural Preservation Study documents at PWC Planning Office site:
Here
9/17/19 – County Planning Office – Recommendations for Rural Crescent Development
Prince William Times: County planning staff details rural crescent zoning recommendation – The Coalition to Protect Prince William County (protectpwc.org)
What is the Benefit to Citizens from this latest Plan?
PDR Purchase of Development Rights 091719
Conservation Residential Subdivision District 091719
TDR Transfer of Development Rights 091719
AAOD Agritourism and Arts Overlay District 091719
7/30/19 – Proposed Plan
7/30/19 – County Planning Proposed Plan for Rural Crescent Development
What is the Benefit to Citizens from this Plan?
The county proposed multiple alternatives which will radically change our rural area. Existing 10-acre lot zoning with no public sewer (A-10) would be replaced with either RC-A or RC-B (Rural Cluster) high density housing zoning with public sewer. In addition, alternatives TDR-A or TDR-B (Transfer of Development Rights) high density housing zoning incentives with public sewer will be added. PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) incentives may be made available. The AAOD (Agritourism and Arts Overlay District) would cover the entire Rural Crescent. LUV (Land Use Valuation) modifications may be made. Refer to each alternative poster and map for the county’s details (links below). The county also provided a Levels of Service Impact table outlining some impacts for each alternative (table listed below).
Unfortunately, the county’s handouts are confusing, contain many mis-statements, and mislead citizens. Here below we attempt to outline critical issues with their plan. Even this will take some real focused attention to fully grasp.
You will have to do your homework with their docs (links below) and on their website (http://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/planning/Pages/Rural-Area-Plan.aspx) to know more. They don’t make it easy – we have done the best we can.
If you want to understand how the Rural Crescent came to be and what the future can look like with sound policies benefiting the entire county, read this: https://protectpwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rural-Crescent-History-and-Future.pdf
Access HERE our already-formatted and easy-to-send email NOW to get your thoughts to the County Board of Supervisors and Planning Office representatives. Personalize the text to make your message even more powerful, or send it as it is.
KEY TAKEAWAYS from the 7/30/19 PWC Planning Office proposed changes to the Rural Crescent:
Taking rural acres for intense housing density: TDR-A or TDR-B
- Either TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) option denotes the “receiving” area for new intense housing development is in the existing rural acreage – which the Planning Office says removes 4011 rural acres (see NOTE below regarding discrepancy with this figure) from the Rural Crescent for a high density housing development transitional ribbon “receiving area” girdling the entire rural area. See gray “Transition Ribbons” in both TDR-A and TDR-B maps below.
- NOTE: An independent GIS expert audited the county’s maps of the proposed “Transition Ribbon” area, and determined that it actually encompasses 13,800 acres removed from the rural area for intense housing development, as compared to the ~4000 acres claimed by the Planning Office!
- This will enable extremely dense housing development miles into and all along the borders of the Rural Crescent. Rural viewshed gone.
- Both “sending” and “receiving” acres are within the current rural area
- By comparison, smart growth TDR “receiving” areas are in development areas, not in the same rural “sending” area, such as PWC is pursuing
- SRR (Semi-Rural Residential) zoning is an existing and valid transitional zoning tool. Land bordering the current Rural Crescent boundary is already zoned SRR. No additional “transition” area is needed for our rural area.
- Transition Ribbon “receiving area” housing lot density: TDR-A: 1.5 acre lots; TDR-B: slightly less than 1/2 acre (.4 acre) lots
- Land in rural “sending area” not held in permanent conservation easement. Risk losing “preserved” open space to further development in the future. Any 20 acre or larger lot can participate. Contiguous lot owners can join together to participate.
Higher density housing throughout the entire rural area: RC-A or RC-B
- RC (Rural Cluster) capability (without public sewer) exists today with A-10 zoning (see A-10 Poster below)
- RC-A: 3-5 acre no increased density but with public sewer (See RC-A poster doc and map below – any brown lot on map can participate)
- Higher housing lot density: RC-B: 2 acre with public sewer (See RC-B poster doc and map below – any brown lot on map can participate).
- High density rural cluster subdivisions can be established throughout the entire rural area. With RC-A, any 50 acre or larger lot owner can sell 50% of their land for a cluster subdivision to be built with homes on lots as small as 3 acres. With RC-B, any 20 acre or larger lot owner can sell 40% of their land for a cluster subdivision to be built with homes on lots as small as 2 acres.
- Public sewer will be made available to any cluster development built. This will make public sewer ubiquitous and available throughout the Rural Crescent, enabling other additional developments to request and be granted public sewer.
- All available rural area land can be targeted by RC, as well as TDR alternatives
- Agricultural and 10-acre lot zoning has successfully maintained low-density housing and open space in the Rural Crescent
Sewer extensions throughout the rural area: Transition Ribbons and Cluster neighborhoods
- RC-A, RC-B, TDR-A and TDR-B alternatives all extend public sewer throughout the entire rural area
- Once public sewer is available and nearby, subsequent developments will request public sewer
- No public sewer has been the greatest impediment to high-density development in the Rural Crescent
Fuzzy, weak and unenforceable conservation easement policy
- Conservation easement organizations have strict criteria, and may not be willing to take on small (ex 12 acre) conservation easements from RC-B alternative, or even larger conservation easements
- Development rights on sending area land with either TDR-A or TDR-B alternatives can be reversed in the future. Privately held easements are likely to be overturned, and the land eventually built out anyway.
Planning Office calculations of rural land to “develop” and “potentially save” are totally WRONG
- They continuously cite Rural Acreage as ~117,000 acres
- 44,060 acres is NOT available for consideration in these debates and calculations.
- This acreage encompasses Marine Corps Base Quantico, Manassas Battlefield Park, Prince William Forest Park, Conway Robinson State Forest and Prince William County owned open space.
- This unavailable acreage should not be part of the equation as all this acreage is not eligible for development on any scale
- The correct starting amount of acreage for this debate and calculations is ~73,000 acres of private land in the Rural Crescent, which is either open, actively being farmed, or already contains homes ranging in lot size from one acre to >20 acres.
- The rest of these numbers are also from the Planning Office presentation:
- The already developed or encumbered acreage in the rural area totals 44,898 acres
- Which leaves ~28,000 acres of available “undeveloped” land in the rural area
- Actively being farmed acres in the Rural Crescent is ~10,000 acres
- Which leaves ~18,600 acres in land in <20 acre and >20 acre lots
- What basis was used for their calculations of “new, protected contiguous open space” for RC-A (8,145 acres) and RC-B (13,759 acres) options?
- If their calculation is based on a percentage of 117,000 acres, these figures are EXTREMELY inaccurate. If this was done, they are simply moving puzzle pieces around to arrive at their desired conclusion.
Fragmented and un-accessible open space
- Small 12 acre “open” plots generated with RC-B alternative (or slightly larger plots generated with RC-A alternative) scattered throughout the rural area cannot be appreciated and accessed by the public
- Rural cluster subdivisions will totally break down and break up existing contiguous open space in rural area
- Without enforceable and permanent conservation easements, land owners over time will find ways to build out any “protected” open space
New Infrastructure costs: Roads, Schools, Services, Utilities
- See Levels of Service Impact table for number of students generated, school facilities required, average daily car trips, services required. This table does not reflect all impact, see bullets below.
- Building out the rural area will require entirely new infrastructure to be added. Costs of improved and/or new roads, new schools, sewer extensions, etc. is not reflected. Higher taxes!
- Existing infrastructure in other areas can be expanded more cost effectively to accommodate any new housing required
Farming (at any scale) and agri-tourism will be totally lost to unrelenting development pressure
Additional impacts not called out by County for all alternatives
- Increased commute times for existing residents’ cars, as well as more than 150,000 new cars
- Water table depleted
- Noise and light pollution
- Deforestation
- Economic value of the rural viewshed will be entirely lost
- Transition Ribbon, enabling intense housing density, runs through historic battlefields, and parks: Long Park, Silver Lake Park, Buckland Battlefield, Wellington Glen Park, Bristoe Station Battlefield, Prince William Forest Park
- Impacts of this plan on other parts of the county are not listed by the Planning Office
- Open space and farmland preserved by existing A-10 alternative is not listed by the Planning Office
- Transportation average daily trip impact caused by AAOD is not listed by the Planning Office
Rolling back rural area zoning to 1981 standards
- Going back almost half a century to zoning before the Rural Crescent urban growth and open space boundary was created removes most protections for this rural area
Redevelopment and/or development potentials in the county’s development area are unaddressed
Population growth housing needs not accurately documented
- The county’s average 2% growth per year can be met well into the future in areas of the county already zoned for diverse housing
PWC Planning Office table of documented impacts from proposed alternatives – 7/30/19:
(Access links below to proposed alternative documents)
Planning Office Rural Area Draft Plan – 7/30/19
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS:
RuralAreaMeeting_RCA_Rural Cluster with existing Density and Sewer Poster_2019_0730
RuralAReaMeeting_RCA Rural Cluster with existing Density and Sewer Map_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_RCB_Rural Cluster with Increased Density and Sewer Poster_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_RCB Rural Cluster with Increased Density and Sewer Map_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_TDRB_Transfer of Development Rights using Density Based on Long Range Land Use from the 1981 Comprehensive Plan Poster_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_AAOD_Agritourism and Arts Overlay District Poster_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_AAOD Agritourism and Arts Overlay District Map_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_LUV Land Use Valuation_Poster_2019_0730
RuralAreaMeeting_LUV Land Use Valuation Map_2019_0730
PWC Planning Office Introductory documents from 7/30/19 meeting:
