Dogwood's 'clustering' scheme will create many problems

Date published: 11/5/2002

The Dogwood Development proposal in Spotsylvania County is instructive in that it reveals how a massive project can be misrepresented as "smart" growth. I do appreciate developer Ray Smith's candor at the public listening session, but I sharply disagree with key facets of his supporting rationale.

Mr. Smith stated that building the Outer Connector is critical to his project. This proves that the sprawl-inducing Outer Connector is really all about development.

Mr. Smith argued his request to increase housing units more than 10-fold above that allowed under current zoning is good for Spotsylvania and its residents. He said clustering growth this way would prevent sprawl and save nine other farms from development.

Not! Correctly applied, clustering encourages a developer to leave more open spaces intact by clustering the permitted number of housing units on smaller lots. In return, the developer saves infrastructure costs.

Clustering does not mean increasing housing units eight- to 10-fold in return for preserving some open space, and hoping that this will somehow prevent other farms from being developed. It is more likely to set a terrible precedent for other development.

Clustering applies when Mr. Smith purchases nine neighboring farms, or their development rights, and places permanent easements on them to preserve open space. I'm waiting.

Mr. Smith promised to help address the additional congestion on State Route 3 by building a "back door" from his development via a connection to River Road. This would in effect shift congestion to a state-designated scenic rural road unsuited for heavy traffic and help lead to the destruction of environmentally sensitive open spaces along the Rappahannock River.

I hope Central Virginia Battlefields Trust can successfully negotiate purchase of this historically meaningful land. If not, maintain current zoning. Stay with the comprehensive plan. Don't be seduced by the false siren song of commercial development in return. The price is far, far too high.

Instead, consider setting positive precedent by providing incentives to cluster the 225 housing units, and even increase office-commercial space, and thus preserve far more than the pitiful 35 acres currently proffered. By preserving hallowed ground, only then might Mr. Smith's development earn any right to wear the bloodstained name of Chancellorsville.

R. Thomas Van Arsdall

Spotsylvania

Date published: 11/5/2002