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. 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 below.
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
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:
This map reflects 2016 proposed Gateway Corridor and Transitional Ribbon changes to the Rural Crescent:
rural_crescent map 061616 proposed changes
ARTICLES
http://bristowbeat.com/news/public-questions-use-silver-lake-park-virginia-tough-mudder/
https://greenrisks.blogspot.com/2012/06/rural-crescent-occoquan-and-water.html
COUNTY PROFFERS, PARKS, SILVER LAKE
https://thederecho.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-bocs-and-county-attorney-put-all.html
Silver Lake Karen Sheehan 061819
See the proposals in the May 2014 Prince William County Rural Preservation Study Report: here
Learn all about the Rural Crescent at the Prince William Conservation Alliance site: here
Access all available Rural Preservation Study documents at PWC Planning Office site: here