Archive for the ‘Rural Crescent’ Category

VRE to Haymarket… Who Benefits?

VREVRE Community Meeting!
Update: at the meeting, VRE displayed but did not highlight its exhibit on the number of trains per day.  The exhibit was used to create the inaccurate impression that a Haymarket extension would somehow increase the number of trains using the Manassas Line.  If anything, spending money to build new track would reduce the capital funding available to buy new trains.

Tonight… Tuesday, Nov. 10, 6-8 p.m. at Gainesville Middle School, 8001 Limestone Drive.

Bottom Line: VRE appears to be seeking public support for an extension to Gainesville/Haymarket. It’s a bait-and-switch sales pitch – make people think an extension to Haymarket will increase the number of trains per day.

If anything, spending capital funding on new track instead of buying new trainsets would reduce the potential for increasing the number of VRE trains running daily on Manassas Line.

A legitimate alternatives analysis should include:

  • not building any extension of track, and instead investing in new trainset.
  • not building any station at Haymarket that will induce additional demand from Culpeper, Fauquier, Warren, and Page counties.
  • not building a large parking capacity at any new station, but instead building multiple park-and-shuttle lots nearer to subdivisions so commuters in single occupancy vehicles won’t clog local highways at rush hour.

VRE should consider the alternative of building a new spur track into Innovation Town Center or north of current line, where Vulcan quarry is reaching end of its life and will be converted into water storage bank soon. A new end-of-line station at Innovation/Vulcan quarry could incentivize a high-density town center, and increase TOD potential there!

Prince William County has the opportunity to serve as a 21st century role model for smart transit growth, but the current VDOT plan demonstrates we have a long way to go!

Advertisements

Cell Tower Proposed for Catharpin Road, Rural Crescent

Guest Post by Melanie Kaminski

Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns over the 145 foot, plus 20 extra feet anytime they want it, fake mono-pine that will tower 100 feet plus above the natural tree line at 5513 Catharpin Road, in the Rural Crescent.

Community Wireless Services (CWS) has a 10-year old lease with the landowner and has decided we have poor coverage in the immediate area. Our neighborhood, Oak Valley, is where the majority of those in this so called gap live. We went door to door and a majority of homeowners signed a petition that they did not want the cell tower.

We have service provider maps and our own field testing shows there is good to excellent cell phone coverage. It may not be 5 bars everywhere, but it is fine for us!  We chose to live here because of the rural nature of this area and a commitment of the county to preserve this as stated in their comprehensive plan.

The County even has a Telecommunications Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan, which this application by CWS does not line up with!  This site is the least favorable, according to that plan due to its agriculture and rural designation.  CWS has asked for three waivers for improper set-backs of the tower. It sits in a valley which makes it a poor choice. Continue reading

Dove’s Landing: Watch Out, County Parks Are For… Parking Lots (Really!)

catharpin2
this look like a park?
Now we know – the county’s Parks and Recreation Department supports converting publicly-owned parkland into a bus parking lot and garage at Catharpin Park.

There is no guarantee that Prince William County will keep open space or ballfields as “open space” or “ballfields.”

The parks people think building a JiffyLube on steroids is a perfectly fine use of public parkland.

Local residents are opposed.  All county residents should be disappointed.  If you care about Dove’s Landing, you should be alarmed.

What could the county develop at Dove’s Landing?  The county could, “naturally,” endorse another garage and bus parking lot on parkland.  A new low-income public housing development ?  Hey, it’s a public use, a different county agency might want it, so housing could be A-OK with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Board of County Supervisors.

You say Dove’s Landing is protected ‘cuz it is in the Rural Area?  No problem – so is Catharpin Park.  After a Public Facility Review, the supervisors can approve anything, anywhere.

If an industrial garage is acceptable at Catharpin Park, what is not acceptable on other parkland?  An office building for the Department of XYZ, instead of ballfields?  A specialized landfill for demolition and construction debris, instead of a waterpark at Andrew Leitch?  If there are no limits, then anything goes.

The only way to protect parkland in Prince William County is with enforceable conservation easements.  Signing an easement that limits the ability of the supervisors to approve anything, anywhere, is not a new concept.  The county has such easements on its historic sites and on some parks purchased with Federal funds.  The Park Authority cut a deal with Angler Environmental to restore stream segments and create the Prince William Environmental Bank with permanent conservation easements.

Two county-owned parks are especially at risk: Dove’s Landing and Silver Lake.  Both sites are currently intended for passive recreation uses and would qualify easily for protection under easements accepted by the Virginia Outdoor Foundation – at no cost to taxpayers.

When the county converted the Park Authority into the Parks and Recreation Department, the Board of County Supervisors gave $50,000 to a land trust based in Fairfax County to “protect” the restored stream segments.  The benefit of that deal are questionable , except for political purposes.

County residents (and clean water resources) would be protected better if supervisors directed staff to pursue Virginia Outdoor Foundation conservation easements for Dove’s Landing and Silver Lake.  Conservation easements would ensure that our two largest, undeveloped parks in Prince William are permanently preserved, and can not be converted into industrial sites or other inappropriate uses.

forget "parks are for people" - parks are for industrial facilities

forget “parks are for people” – parks are for industrial facilities

The “Open Space” Fraud Begins at Stone Haven – Hmmm…. Think It Will Continue Into the Rural Presevation Study?

openspace

Are parking lots “open space”? Really?

Prince William County defines Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan (see page POS&T-24) as:

Land that is not dominated by man-made structures. It preserves natural or cultural resources, provides for passive recreation, is used for cultivated fields or forests, or exists in a natural and undeveloped state. Open space may include nature preserves, historic sites, farms, parks, forests, floodplains, wetlands, etc., and may include some structures, parking areas, roads, trails and facilities that support the use of the land.

“Some structures” is being interpreted so loosely by the Planning Department that the parking lot at Wal*Mart would qualify.

For example, the Stone Haven development application is proposing 1,650 homes and more than 1 million sq. ft. of commercial space on 864 acres between Linton Hall Road and Nisson Pavilion. The site is currently dominated by an established forest, where 35 specimen trees (typically, trees with a diameter greater than 30″) were found. Only 16 are proposed for protection and much of the promised open space does not meet the County’s definition.

Citizens need to fight the Planning Department (and often the elected supervisors…) to get a fair share of parkland, as new developments are approved.  The proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2006 pretended everything was just hunky-dory and business-as-usual was just fine, while the county’s population swelled far faster than the number of ballfields or opportunities for passive recreation.

In response, the Prince William Conservation Alliance led a long debate that concluded with creation of a new trails commission and a policy that the county would “Complete and maintain an up-to-date inventory of protected open space in Prince William County.”

Such an inventory is still missing in action, and the Planning Department is wheeling back to the bad ol’ days of “anything goes, Prince William has no standards, and even guidelines are loosey-goosey” development. The Planning Department is trying to create an open space loophole through which developers can maximize “yield” and profits from their projects, while the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.

The supervisors are requesting an extension of the time to sell bonds approved in 2006 to pay for parks and open space, as well as libraries and roads. You’d think the elected officials would also seek to obtain at least the minimum proffers for public facilities as new developments are approved so the taxpayers don’t subsidize the for-profit developers, but the Planning Department is undercutting that approach.

Which of the following do you think meet the official county definition of “open space”?

  1. Active recreation facilities
  2. Community recreation centers
  3. Power lines
  4. Stormwater management infrastructure
  5. Buffers along roads
  6. Middle schools
  7. None of the above

If you picked “none of the above,” think again.  According to the staff report for the proposed Stone Haven development project, the County Planning Office agrees with the developer that items 1-6, above, qualify as open space in Prince William County.  The county is trying to change from commitments of “Protected Open Space” and establish a new category, “Pretend Open Space.”

It’s a fraud, unless you think the proposed bus parking lot next to Catharpin Park is no different from the park itself.

Yeah, the entire acreage dedicated to a middle school, including buildings and parking lots, is “open space.”  Really.   So is that 15′ wide strip of grass between the road and the parking lot.  When you walk through the doors of Chinn Recreation Center, you’re not indoors – you’re walking into open space, as proposed by the Planning Department.  Really.

As Sherlock Holmes would say to Watson, “The game is afoot.”  The same efforts to disguise the number of acres dedicated to public parks is underway for open space at Stone Haven, and that offers a clear clue about upcoming proposals for “preserving” the Rural Area…

What are conservation easements?

Big trees are hard to find.A conservation easement is a contract involving development of land.    

Landowners can sell or donate their rights to develop a parcel, while retaining ownership of the land itself for remaining purposes (often as farmland, forest or open space). 

Conservation easements are land deeds that transfer some property rights to a qualified non-government agency (land trust) or public agency, such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). 

Typically, landowners sell/donate the rights to develop most or all of the houses permitted by local zoning on their property.  If zoning permits 10 houses to be constructed on a 100-acre parcel, the landowner could retain the right to build one house but sell/donate the development rights to the other 9 houses to a land trust. 

With lower development potential, the value of the 100-acre parcel would drop substantially. Landowners are compensated through payments from Purchase of Development Rights Programs, tax credits, or both so the sale of a conservation easement makes financial sense to the private property owner.

Land trusts have permanent legal authority to enforce the terms of conservation easements.  If a future owner of a parcel with a conservation easement attempts to build an excessive number of houses or violate other terms of the deal (such as preservation of stream buffers), the land trust can go to court to enforce the terms of the deal.

Most conservation easements keep land private, but could be written to authorize public use on trails or even the entire parcel. When the objective is to limit development in order to preserve natural or historical values, a conservation easement may be appropriate.

Rural Preservation Study – First Results of Public Survey

ruralarea2There were 384 responses to the county’s survey on the Rural Area, and whether current policy to preserve that area for agriculture and low-density development should be altered.

Developers propose every year to bust open the zoning and allow more houses.  The Rural Preservation Study now being conducted by the Planning Department could be just a stalking horse to revise existing zoning.

After all, county staff used to refer to the Rural Area as “unzoned,” assuming future rezoning for sprawl was inevitable.

However, county residents have supported the Rural Area planning that has been in effect for the last 15 years.  The boundary line has been modified only once to permit a major development (Avendale).

Here is a clue about public support for keeping the Rural Area rural: in 2013, only 11 out of the 384 responses suggested the Rural Area should metamorphose into future subdivisions:

ruralarea

How to Preserve the Rural Area (And Keep Property Taxes Low in Prince William County)

by Charlie Grymes

56154814For 15 years, Prince William County has consciously steered most development to the Development Area. Within the Development Area, current planning/zoning will permit development of new houses for the 150,000 new residents expected to arrive by 2030. There is enough undeveloped land within the Development Area, already planned/zoned for new construction, to absorb 20 years of population growth.

Still, some developers are not satisfied. They see an opportunity to bend the rules to their advantage, creating short-term profits while imposing long-term costs on county taxpayers. A few developers want to buy land in the Rural Area, then get county supervisors to rezone the property to permit denser development.

Buying land by the acre and selling it by the square foot could generate a quick profit for a few people. However, scattershot development throughout the Rural Area would require taxpayers to build unplanned schools, fire/police stations, and other public facilities, increasing property taxes forever.

Low-tax advocates want to maintain the logical, planned development in the county, with development steered to the Development Area. Conservationists want to protect open space and streams in the Rural Area, providing wildlife habitat and helping Prince William meet its obligations to send clean water downstream to the Chesapeake Bay. Farmers interested in for-profit agriculture want to preserve opportunities in the Rural Area to lease/acquire enough land to make a farm operation economically viable. Continue reading

Why Do We Have a Rural Crescent?

by Charlie Grymes

23587759_150In 1998, Supervisors revised the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to encourage high-density development on major chunks of land along Linton Hall and Route 15. More than 60% of the private land in the county was designated as the Development Area. In the last 15 years, Braemar, Kingsbrooke, Dominion Valley, Heritage Hunt, and other subdivisions have been completed in this expanded Development Area.

Expansion of the Development Area was intended to stimulate development of high-value “executive” homes. Tax revenues from low-cost townhomes, the dominant way population growth was accommodated in the 1980’s-1990’s, were too low. New residents had moved into those townhomes, crowding schools, congesting roads, and overwhelming the capability of first responders to provide basic public safety services.

By 1998, local elected officials were tired of increasing taxes to fund expansion of public services in Prince William. Voting for an increase in the property tax does not increase the popularity or re-election potential of county supervisors. Continue reading