Archives

vanessa-newVanessa Remmers covers Stafford County government and schools for fredericksburg.com and The Free Lance-Star.

Check here for the latest reports on news from Stafford County.

Share
RSS feed of this blog

Surprise! It’s A Meeting…

The Stafford County Planning Commission will meet tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Chambers of the County Administration Center. This is not a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. According to the county website:

“The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Urban Development Areas pursuant to adopted Resolution R11-78. “

R11-78 is on page 35 of this document.

Permalink: http://news.fredericksburg.com/staffordnews/2011/02/22/surprise-its-a-meeting/

  • LarryG

    Besides the less than wonderful so-called “public” process be followed, actual allocation of the 4000 “additional” could, in fact, be accomplished much like Spotsylvania (and many other counties) have by simply increasing the density from 4du to 8du on the existing designated UDAs ( or existing water/sewer served areas) and the obvious question is why go through all this other convoluted folderal if it could be so easily accomplished otherwise?

    The whole way the UDA issue is being handled is just plain odd when one realizes that many counties met the UDA directive by merely saying that their existing water/sewer served areas would entertain 8du and higher density Proposals because that’s all the UDA law really requires.

    It just requires you to say WHERE you would accommodate future POTENTIAL growth by entertaining/considering dense mixed-use proposals. It does not require you to accept such proposals.

    It does not REQUIRE 4du-only designations.. 8du is fine and, in fact, is what is required if cost-effective transit (to mitigate auto dependency) is to be developed.

    The one thing the county is committing itself to in these designations is the availability of water/sewer and other expensive infrastructure which they have chosen to not disclose to the citizens as to how they would plan to provide and pay for such infrastructure.

    and the survey? I defy most people to go look at that survey and try to work through it and supposedly more than 150 people actually did do it but GAWD … the way the questions were worded and the convoluted way the person is routed through the questions is laughable.

    The bottom line is that the law is not near that complicated and there is no need to make the issue that complicated.

    Spotsylvania picked TWO locations and is concentrating on those two in terms of how to responsibly provision the infrastructure that will be needed to serve 8du proposals.

    Why Stafford has chosen to make this such a convoluted mess in terms of both staff and public process is a head scratcher.

  • Dean Fetterolf

    According to the Census Stafford’s poulation is just a about 1000 shy of the magical 130,000 population to trigger the 4 vs 8 unit density.

    Spotsy is planning for the future by using 8. It saves greenspace, saves on extending costly water, sewer and roads.

    Spotsy’s elected officials are actually thinking and planning compared to Stafford’s.

    Do Spoty’s officials also believe that their Comp Plan will actually pay for itself?

  • LarryG

    Does Spotsy think the Comp Plan will actually pay for itself?

    They know that so-called “affordable” single-family subdivision dwellings do not unless they exceed 400K in price.

    But then truly “affordable” UDA housing will not either to be fair.

    Growth, in general does not “pay for itself” in real estate taxes alone but in fact the county must operate on a balanced budget and if you include all the other taxes it can and does collect including sales taxes from Commercial retail – then it does, in fact, pay for itself without tax increases IF YOU DON’T COUNT roads and transportation and they know this.