Promoting clustered houses was meant as a compromise, a way to satisfy Stafford's need to control rural growth and protect landowners who fear zoning changes may depress land values.
But that's not the way a proposal to allow clustering in agricultural zones was received at a public hearing before the Planning Commission last night.
After listening to 50 people who opposed the plan and only two who favored it, the commission voted 5-2 to urge the supervisors to scrap the ordinance. Commissioners Steve Pitzel and Debrarae Kearns were opposed.
But the proposal isn't dead yet. The Board of Supervisors will schedule its own public hearing and vote on the issue.
Slow-growth advocates complained that the proposal makes it harder, not easier, to control growth. Landowners and developers were no happier. They said the proposal doesn't offer enough flexibility to actually make clustering viable.
"When I first heard about this ordinance, I thought it was a good idea," said Bob Berner of Garrett Development Corp. "As I look through the ordinance and I see you have come up with 16 pages of regulations, that's more than what's included in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 [residential zoning districts]. I think we have overdone the issue. I hope you work hard on the next ordinance, because with this one you have succeeded in making everyone unhappy."
Clustering lets a builder condense all of the permitted lots for a certain parcel into a smaller space than would normally be allowed under the zoning ordinance. In exchange, developers must set aside large expanses of open space for permanent preservation. Generally, builders like the concept because it allows them to cut infrastructure costs with fewer miles of roads. County officials and slow-growth advocates like the idea because it preserves more rural land.
Stafford's clustering ordinance would double the minimum lot size from three acres to six acres in conventional subdivisions. But in clusters, a lot as small as one acre would be allowed as long as the average density remained at one house per three acres and 40 percent of the parcel was left open space.
The ordinance is part of a larger plan to manage rural growth that Supervisors Pete Fields and Gary Snellings put forth in November. In addition to the ordinance, the two have suggested a purchase-of-development-rights program and a design manual that specifies standards for developing slopes, wetlands and culturally or historically significant areas.
"Let's look at what will happen if this ordinance passes," said Stavroula Conrad. "We will protect our agricultural lands and open space. Our taxes will be lower, as there will be less infrastructure for us to subsidize. Our quality of life will increase, and our property values will increase. What will happen to the developers? They will get to build less houses and they will make less profit."
Developers and landowners objected to the minimum lot size increasing to six acres for conventional subdivisions. Slow-growth advocates objected to shrinking the lot size to one acre for clusters.
Landowners didn't like the part that requires those who want to cluster to hand over open space to the county for free if the county needs land for a school, park or other public facility. Slow-growth advocates didn't like the part that allows developers to factor unbuildable land such as wetlands, streams, roads and utility easements into their calculations of how many lots are allowed.
The county has mulled three proposals for agriculturally zoned land in the past three years. Many of those who spoke last night spoke against the other plans last year and the year before that.
"The proposed ordinance is not fair," said Marjorie Gerhardt. "The county should target all county residents for slow growth, and not just the rural landowners."
To reach RUTH FINCH: 540/720-1622 rfinch@freelancestar.com