Fredericksburg.com - Stafford growth may get a boost

search local
Follow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook

Get a printer-friendly version of this page. E-mail this story to a friend.
Make a post about this story on FredTalk.



Visit Jonas Beals's blog: Tuned In
Visit Jonas Beals's blog: The Rumble
Stafford growth may get a boost
Changes are in store for the Stafford Comprehensive Plan
Date published: 6/2/2010

BY JONAS BEALS

It appears the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan has changed direction--taken a pro-development turn--since Republicans took control of the Board of Supervisors in January.

"Predictably, with the new majority on the board they're systematically eviscerating almost everything of substance," Planning Commissioner Pete Fields, a Democratic appointee, said.

A slower-growth or "smart growth" contingent was in control for the two years prior to the Republican takeover, and that former majority totally revamped the Comprehensive Plan--a document that is supposed to be revised every five years, but has not been substantially altered since 1988.

The plan is meant to chart the desired growth and development pattern in the county for the next 20 years. While it does not rezone any property or set things in stone, new development projects must be evaluated to see if they conform to the plan.

A revised plan developed over the last three years tried to control growth by shrinking the Urban Services Area where public water and sewer would be available. The thought was that a larger USA would encourage sprawl.

"There are only three possibilities of effecting any change in the future of Stafford County given all the vested zoning," said Fields, a former George Washington District supervisor.

According to Fields, one of those ways is shrinking the USA. The other two are downzoning, which is usually an unpopular option, and development impact fees, which are not allowed to be charged in Stafford.

The USA generally occupies the center of the county, with large nodes in the Garrisonville and Falmouth areas. Past plans have proposed expanding the USA to the east along State Route 3 and the Widewater peninsula, to the west along U.S. 17 and Garrisonville Road, and to various parcels in the center of the county.

Last year's proposed Comprehensive Plan did away with most of those USA expansion plans.

The current Planning Commission and a joint Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission committee have their own ideas about how to control growth in the county, and they are unlikely to include a reduced USA.


1  2  Next Page  

Urban Services Area (USA):

In the Comprehensive Plan, these are the areas of the county served, or planned to be served, by public water and sewer. Typically, this is the part of the county reserved for more dense commercial and residential development.

Urban Development Area (UDA):

An area designated for mixed-use urban development; can also be a specific zoning designation. State House Bill 3202 requires a number of counties, including Stafford, to designate specific UDAs to accommodate 10-20 years of the county's projected growth. Those UDAs must incorporate principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood design with mixed-use neighborhoods and pedestrian-friendly road design, among other criteria. Density shall be at least four residential units per acre, per the Virginia law. Counties must designate at least one UDA in their Comprehensive Plan by 2011.

:

Information on House Bill 3202: hb3202.virginia.gov/ urbandevelopment.shtml



Read more stories about Stafford
Date published: 6/2/2010



Most recent reader comments:

Viewing 5 out of 27 comments. (Sorted in reverse order, with most recent post at the top.)

Display comments on this page. | Sort:

PLEASE READ: These reader comments are not moderated. Each user is solely responsible for any message (s)he posts here. The Free Lance-Star does not endorse the views expressed within these comments. All users who post to this Web site must agree to the terms of the FredTalk User Agreement. We rely on our readers to police themselves, and report any content that violates our User Agreement. In accordance with our User Agreement, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms. Any reader can report inappropriate content by clicking the "Report this post to admins" link at the bottom of each comment. You need not be registered to report a post.

That's an OLD plan that pushed development out to rural areas (posted by Lespaul , June 3, 2010 10:43 am)    0 likes
So now you have a bunch of houses in rural areas with well and septic systems. Question is, what is left to manage? It's already ruined.

They don't pay "squart" on a rural lot (posted by ReadingOne , June 3, 2010 9:43 am)    0 likes
is the problem with the revised plan on the table now. That and taking away commercial & indus. Opens the door to too much rural development. Have proffers completed up front instead of the middle of development or OP. Developer constructs roads first. Hands over money for fire, rescue, schools, etc first. Then when economy turns even further sour or goes up and down, proffers have already been paid. You can't stop development. Manage it.

Developers paying too much? LOL! (posted by Lespaul , June 3, 2010 8:31 am)    0 likes
They don't pay squat on a rural lot. The proffers were in high density areas and where they DO pay proffers, who do you think REALLY pays? Stafford is already ruined IMO and getting worse as we speak.

Two solutions (posted by CenterFlank , June 3, 2010 7:57 am)    0 likes
First, We the people must demand that this region get back on board to a regional "bypass". 95 simply cannot handle the regional traffic along with the Interstate traffic 95 is supposed to be focused on. First phase should be the western part from around Quantico to south of Massaponax. A new bridge crossing Rappahanock can be asthetically pleasing with stone. Virginia should lead the country with "tele-commuting". 30% or so of traffic are Govenrment workers. Get them off the roads 50% of the time.Solved

I don't think the answer is "too much" or "not enough" (posted by larryg , June 2, 2010 6:11 pm)    0 likes
I'm asking where the plans are for the infrastructure and facilities needed for the growth. What are the costs and where will the money come from to build it? Don't you think it DUMB GROWTH to designate growth areas without a plan for the infrastructure they'll need? Every the the BOS wants to designate growth areas - don't they also owe citizens the infrastructure plan? what kind of growth is growth without an infrastructure plan? I call it DUMB GROWTH, dumber voters if they don't hold BOS feet 2 fire.

What do you think?
Enter your FredTalk username and password to post a comment on this story. If you are registered on FredTalk or another part of this site, use that login here. Otherwise, you can just REGISTER here... .

Posting guidelines

1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
2. Please avoid offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or defamatory language.
3. Agree to read & follow THE RULES.
4. Use the "report to admins" link for posts which violate the rules. 5. Keep it on-topic. Posts which contribute nothing of value to the conversation will be deleted.

Username:
Password:

Post title:


Please keep it brief (Limit is 512 characters). Please note, attempts to circumvent this limit by making
multiple posts back-to-back (ex: 'continued', 'part1, 2', etc) will be deleted.

Please make sure CAPS LOCK is off. Posts in ALL CAPS will be deleted.)


By checking this box, you agree to the terms of the FredTalk User agreement.









The Free Lance-Star fredericksburg.com 93.3 WFLS Print Innovators Classic Rock 96.9 99.3 The Vibe wntx radio