The State Will Let UDAs Ride

UDAs are basically required designations. The question is – can they be done while minimizing costs and liability of the county.

They can – if you take a minimal approach such as not committing to water/sewer and other infrastructure expansions.

In theory – you allow an existing water/sewer-served area to ENTERTAIN PROPOSALS for more density that includes mixed-use.

You can do this as several counties in Va already have – by simply designating their EXISTING water/sewer-served areas as receptive to 8DU/.6 FAR an higher – developer proposals.

There might be some costs involved such as bigger water/sewer but the expansion costs are negotiable with the developer and potentially covered by Service Districts an such.

In addition 8DU and higher allows much more cost-effective transit which then provides one of the big promised benefits of dense UDAs – the ability to use transit instead of the auto.

4DU density located remote from existing water/sewer/transit is essentially more auto-dependent sprawl attendant with the high infrastructure costs associated with that kind of development.

Why would Stafford want to do that?

Why would they want to COMMIT to provide water/sewer to brand new areas not already served by water/sewer and not already in their planned expansions in their Master Plan and CIP?

what useful purpose does this solve?

what risks does it bring to the county taxpayers?

Remember – the GA did not prohibit or restrict ANY developer from PROPOSING a UDA – at which point – the expansion of the water/sewer is not a commitment by the county but a negotiation.

It’s hard to fathom that the BOS in Stafford is ONLY FOLLOWING THE LAW when they don’t have to do it this way and they have options for meeting the law without compromising the county’s ability to manage growth and the costs of it.