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.
"We're controlling growth far more than what they were doing," said Supervisor Cord Sterling, who is a Republican and a member of the joint committee along with Fields. "We're trying to reduce the growth in the more rural areas."
Complicating matters is a state law that says counties of Stafford's size must dedicate specific USAs that can accommodate 10 years' worth of projected growth--14,000 dwelling units. The committee has identified nine such areas, to be developed in a dense, mixed-use format where commercial, business and residential property occupy the same area.
Not all of the proposed Urban Development Areas are within the USA, and will likely require public water and sewer service to be expanded.
While the mixed-use development is a hallmark of smart growth practices like "new urbanism," Fields thinks the location of some of the UDAs are too far from the core of the county, and are simply sprawl of a more dense nature.
"He is taking a limited view," Sterling said. "He's ignoring the ability of this county to use trains for transportation. We cannot continue to build with the idea we're going to expand I-95 to eight lanes. It will not work."
Indeed, some of the proposed UDAs are near rail lines and existing Virginia Railway Express stations. Sterling hopes that reduces the impact on local roads.
In addition, he hopes the revised Comprehensive Plan encourages business growth, which could lead to more local jobs.
Sterling also hopes developers will be attracted by the dense mixed-use projects, and that they will be willing to proffer the needed roads, schools and public safety facilities such large developments would require.
"We are focused on making sure any developers that pursue what's in our plan are forced to provide the necessary infrastructure," Sterling said.
Fields said the UDA plan is unlikely to force developers to do anything other than what they are already doing--taking advantage of favorable zoning with relatively small by-right lot sizes.
He considers the existing Comprehensive Plan to be a "disaster," but said that any plan would be an improvement, even if it isn't the one he supported a year ago.
Still, Fields thinks the new plan is likely to benefit developers rather than residents.
"It's sad," he said. "Most of the work is going up in smoke. It's a real slap in the face."
Jonas Beals: 540/368-5036
Email: jbeals@freelancestar.com
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