Stafford Supervisors got their first focused look at the new Comprehensive Plan last night.
After two hours of questions and discussion, it was clear that the board's review will likely be a detailed, protracted affair.
A comprehensive plan acts as a blueprint for a locality's growth, and can range in sophistication from a rather rudimentary land-use map to a complex set of guidelines and directives. State law requires comprehensive plans to be examined every five years, and Stafford's current review has been the most intense in the history of the county. It has taken three years for the Planning Commission to finalize the document and pass it on to the board for approval.
Not five minutes into county planner Mike Zuraf's presentation, supervisors were questioning the specifics of the plan.
"We are revisiting this at the insistence of the people who are pushing this document down our throats," Supervisor Mark Dudenhefer said. He was referring to a revived discussion of the boundaries of the urban services area, something that Cord Sterling noted had already been compromised on and passed months ago.
Criticism came, in large part, from Sterling, Dudenhefer and Paul Milde, but specific arguments about high-density urban development areas eventually drifted toward philosophical differences and overall impressions.
Most supervisors agreed, with varying intensity, on two things: that residential development should not burden taxpayers and some of Stafford's rural character should be maintained. For the most part, the plan suggests achieving that by concentrating dense development in the center of the county, along the I-95 corridor.
"Do we continue to do what we know doesn't work: sprawl?" Planning Commissioner Arch Di Peppe asked. "You have two choices--you can go up with higher densities, or out with lower densities."
Sterling believes there may be more options, and he hopes to find a middle ground that he could accept.
"There are 4,000 more units of residential development in this plan," Sterling said. "This looks too much like Arlington County with the number of apartments they are proposing. Arlington County is not where I want to live."
Milde was more concerned with how the county would encourage dense growth to happen in the areas designated by the plan.
"This plan does not do anything to encourage infill development," he said. "We have to have something that recognizes the reality that by-right development is easier to do. Redirecting growth is preferable to sprawl into our rural areas."
No decisions or changes were made last night, but by the end, most had recognized the value of having the discussion.
"It's good when you can go nose-to-nose and still shake hands when it's all done," Dudenhefer said.
The board will resume discussion of the Comprehensive Plan at their next meeting on March 3.
Jonas Beals: 540/368-5036
Email: jbeals@freelancestar.com