The Rural Crescent Proposals

The comment period for the Alternatives for the Rural Crescent ends on August 16^th 2019. You have a very narrow time frame to get your comments in and have the Planning Office hear your concerns. After that the Planning Office will generate their plan for the Rural Crescent and make a community presentation on September 24^th 2019.

Prince William County Planning Office held a public outreach meeting on Tuesday night to a present the options that they are considering for the fate of the Rural Crescent. They considered 6 options with two of the options having two versions for a total of eight options that they are considering implementing in the Rural Crescent.

The Planning Office presented about 5 minutes of general information on each option to small groups and allowed the groups to ask questions on each option before filling out a comment card to rating each option from Strongly Disagree 1 to Strongly Agree-5 on the guiding principals that were developed as part of the 2013 Rural Area Study:

·        Preserves/protects contiguous open space for publically assessibe passive recreation

·        Preserves potential for continued farming in the County

·        Allows bucolic farmland viewsheds

·        Represents smart growth

·        Preserves cultural resources

·        Protect rural economy

·        Demonstrates fiscal responsibility

There is a limited area of the Rural Area that is undeveloped and has not yet been partitioned into residential lots. The remaining undeveloped land is 24% of the Rural Area or 28,089 acres. That is all that can be preserved if any of the Rural Area is to be preserved. So,  here are the alternatives presented. As soon as the Planning Office puts the complete descriptions of the options on-line I will link to them for your convenience.

Prince William County Planning Office Alternatives for the Rural Area:

1.  A-10 : 10-acre lots and rural cluster with existing density and no sewer. This is the existing policy. In the coming years this will result in an additional 2,783 houses being built, and additional 1,813 students in our schools, an additional 28,108 transportation daily trips and no open space preserved.

2a.  RC-A: Rural cluster with existing density and sewer. This alternative provides land owners the “right” to extend sewer to their property while maintaining existing planned density levels. It would allow development to be clustered on a corner of a property in order to preserve greenspace and a conservation easement to be placed on the remainder of the land. In the coming years this will result in an additional 2,783 houses being built, and additional 1,813 students in our schools, an additional 28,118 transportation daily trips and 8,145 acres of open space preserved. This limits the amount of impervious surface constructed which may impact groundwater recharge less than option A-10.

2b.  RC-B Rural Cluster with increased density and sewer. This alternative provides land owners the “right” to extend sewer to their property while almost doubling planned density levels. It would allow development to be clustered on a corner of a property in order to preserve greenspace and a conservation easement to be placed on the remainder of the land. In the coming years this will result in an additional 5,067 houses being built, and additional 3,303 students in our schools, an additional 51,177 transportation daily trips and 8,145 acres of open space preserved. The impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater for this has not been studied, but there would be an increased demand on groundwater and a reduction in recharge.

3a.  TDR-A: Transfer of development rights using density based on rural character areas of the rural preservation study. In a TDR program a landowner sells his or her development rights to a developer. This alternative identifies “sending areas” where the rights can be purchased and receiving areas where higher density cluster development will be built. This version of the TDR will have the density in the receiving areas of one house per 1.5 acres. In the coming years this will result in an additional 2,643 houses being built, and additional 1,723 students in our schools, an additional 26,694 transportation daily trips and 23,889 acres of open space preserved. The impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater for this has not been studied, but this does not increase the impervious surface area in the sending areas.

3b.  TDR-B: Transfer of development rights using density base on long range land use from the 1981 comprehensive plan. In a TDR program a landowner sells his or her development rights to a developer. This alternative identifies “sending areas” where the rights can be purchased and receiving areas where higher density cluster development will be built. The basis for the number of rights allotted to land will be based on the number of houses that could have been developed under the 1981 Comprehensive plan. This version does not treat the landowners of the Rural Area equally, but makes land in what was called the “rural residential area” 39 years ago much more valuable.  This alternative will have the density in the receiving areas of one house per 0.4 acres. In the coming years this will result in an additional 10,390 houses being built, and additional 6,773 students in our schools, an additional 104,939 transportation daily trips and 23,176 acres of open space preserved. The impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater for this has not been studied, but this creates a high density area of impervious surfaces around the entire Rural Area which could significantly impact the wells of existing residents. In addition, this increases the demand for public water which is also limited.

4.  PDR: PDR with increase of minimum lot size of A-1. In this alternative, Prince William County would purchase the development rights of lots larger than 20 acres and place an easement for farming and/or open space on the land. Though the county would not use eminent domain, the county is using coercion by increasing the minimum lot size. This while using public money, would not increase the number of houses, students in our schools nor the number of transportation daily trips in the coming years. There would be no impact on sustainability and availability of groundwater.

5.  AAOD: Agritourism and Arts Overlay District. This alternative can be used to complement other options. The objective would be to allow more flexibility to establish a rural and agrarian area with agritourism and art-related businesses. While this will increase economic vitality, the water demands from breweries and wineries needs to be carefully considered. Also, the operation of alcohol selling venues along unlit rural roads must carefully be considered.

6.  LUV: Land use valuation. Since 1972 Virginia has allowed the assessed value of productive agricultural land to be based on its use rather than market value. This option envisions tweaking the aspects of this program that the county controls- reducing the minimum acreage for agricultural, forested and open land.  

Now is your time to comment. Click here to see the full details or comment on the Planning Office web-site. My last thoughts. Changing the character of the Rural Crescent to include cluster development could impact water availability to the existing residents and impact base flow to our rivers. Bringing in public water and sewer connections even if they are limited to cluster development along what is being called the transition area, such expansion may exceed the capacity of the current systems and require water and sewer infrastructure expansion. Clustered properties cannot rely on well and septic- they are simply too close together, clustered development will be connected to public water supplied by Prince William Service Authority.

 
Currently, public water in the areas adjacent to the Rural Crescent is supplied by a combination of groundwater wells and surface water supply that is purchased from Fairfax Water and Lake Manassas. There is a cost to purchase additional capacity from Fairfax Water and that water is not unlimited. Based on the PW Service Authority study of the Evergreen system, that system cannot provide adequate water to withstand a leak or to have adequate water to recover from a problem, let alone provide supply to more homes. In addition, piping and pumps will have to carry water from its source to any new development. This would force the County to find additional sources of water at greater incremental cost to all rate payers and such sources may not even be available. In addition, water mains and sewage piping are costly not only to build, but also to maintain.

For more than two centuries the waters of the Potomac seemed unlimited. It is not, Fairfax Water, Loudoun Water, WSSC, and the Washington Aqueduct all share the waters of the Potomac. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, manages the Potomac River allocation of the regional water supply during times of low flow and plan for future water supply. The Washington DC region has reached the point in population density and development that during times of drought, natural flows on the Potomac are not always sufficient to allow water withdrawals by the utilities (including power generation which takes an awesome amount of water) while still maintaining a minimum flow in the river for sustaining aquatic resources.