|
Comp plan misleads
Date published: 7/30/2010 Comp plan misleads I am writing to express my concern over the current draft of the Stafford County Comprehensive Plan. In a July 17 op-ed, Cord Sterling refers to the plan "now in its final stages" and sites several improvements that "will be funded by those who would develop the new state-mandated Urban Development Areas." This is misleading. The plan is still in draft phase, not final stages, and requires public review. The new developers cannot pay for all these improvements unless the plan to add 70,000 to 100,000 new homes is in it. There are no provisions I believe the board has placed Stafford's rural character and natural beauty in jeopardy by allowing a comprehensive plan to be submitted. It provides too many loopholes for development without real provisions for paying for improvements. To develop nine additional areas in Stafford, and most without approved or even planned infrastructure, is not responsible planning! I cannot believe the board can endorse a plan that does not involve the VDOT impact analysis (not slated to be complete until 2011). Stafford supervisors need to take a more responsible position. The addition of an indefinite number of home sites will surely stretch our current infrastructure. The promise that development will pay for all the improvements is erroneous and naive. Mr. Sterling should correctly represent the plan to residents, reconsider his position, and not let this plan go forward without a comprehensive VDOT study completed. Residents should be concerned that the current Comprehensive Plan is a not-so-comprehensive plan that will stretch our county thin. Bill Britton Stafford
|
Date published: 7/30/2010
Population Projection "Sensitivity"
(posted by
DeanFetterolf
, July 30, 2010 4:41 pm)
The sensitivity of even the slightest error in the growth projections or in the demographics is profound. Currently 21.1% of the Stafford population is school aged children. If the population in 2020 reaches the projected 176, 710 we would have 37,286 school students or about 10,500 more than today. A 0.5% swing in that school aged demographic means +/- 900 students or about +/- $7M in teacher salaries/benefits to maintain the 4th highest student teacher ratio in VA.
the basis for UDAs is flawed because
(posted by
larryg
, July 30, 2010 1:38 pm)
it bases growth projections on past growth and while that
might have been okay a few years back.. it's not any more.
The growth that Stafford has seen in the last two years may
be quite different than the growth in the prior 8 years.
Who is to say what growth projection is the correct one for
the required UDAs?
Meeting Video
(posted by
DeanFetterolf
, July 30, 2010 12:25 pm)
The BOS special meeting on the Comp Plan can be seen here
http://www.co.stafford.va.us/BOS/Video/2010/Video_072810.shtml
Too long in coming
(posted by
staffordcat
, July 30, 2010 10:18 am)
Va. law requires a locality to adopt/revise/review its Comp Plan every 5 years. Do you realize Stafford last adopted a comp plan in the mid 1990s? The last two Boards are to blame for not getting the job done. Amongst planners across the state, this situation is laughable, and I am ashamed for Stafford. Kudos to the new Board for taking action.
9 UDAs including Widewater
(posted by
DeanFetterolf
, July 30, 2010 9:59 am)
As far as the description of the 9 UDAs go the text doesn't match the tables and doesn't match the maps. Kudos - All the Supervisors recognized and commented on this. While the plan has been in development for 3-4 years the UDAs grew out of a subcommittee from 4 (state required only 3) to 9 very recently. Note the Widewater development and a new VRE station is cleverly called "Stafford Station"
|
