Well folks, here is a great recap from the Prince William Conservation Alliance about Tuesdays Board Meeting. Corey, John Stirrup, Mike May, and Frank P all held true to their pledge to protect the Rural Crescent from high density development. At least from that land use perspective, they maintained the integrity of the best smart growth land use tool this County has in its “back pocket”. On the Lueking property CPA, it was a unanimous denial by ALL supervisors. Classic Concepts CPA was able to garner two votes, Jenkins and Covington, all other six Supervisors voted to deny.

However, the buffer areas were not so lucky. Why are buffers so important? It isn’t just about creating a workable transition from the development area to the rural areas, but MORE importantly, its about protecting the Occoquan Reservoir and its ability to survive as a healthy water supply for millions of citizens! It will take some time, but I will get the votes for the SRR also.

Semi-Rural Residential properties, intended to buffer the Rural Crescent and protect the Occoquan Reservoir, did not fare as well. Supervisors initiated five of the eight proposals to increase densities in Semi-Rural areas, on properties covering approximately 155 acres.

Just click here to read more of PWCA’s comprehensive analysis!

10 Thoughts to “Supervisors Maintain intergrity of Rural Crescent”

  1. food for thought

    It would be nice if the Conservation Alliance provided an actual breakdown of the votes? Were all of the 12 initiations unanimous?

  2. OO

    I read the article at the blog you linked to, and was struck by the following statement –

    It’s worth noting that the County’s most recent Build Out Analysis shows Prince William has currently planned for sufficient housing to accommodate projected population increases to 2025… before adjustments are made to reflect the current economic and housing crisis.

  3. Elena

    Great question! I know that the Lueking property was a unanimous denial, but Classic Concepts CPA into the Rural Crescent was Jenkins and Covington Yes, all else no. I’ll see if I can work on getting the breakdown posted.

    Welcome OO,
    Excellent catch! Yes, 2025 BEFORE adjustments are made for the current housing crisis.

  4. Mom

    “Supervisors Maintain Integrity”, bah hah hah, please stop, enough, uncle, etc.

  5. Elena

    Hey Mom 🙂

    Look, you gotta give some acknowledgement when they do the right thing. Was it a no brainer to deny? Sure. But in this county, common sense does often NOT prevail.

  6. Mom

    Yes, I will give them credit on the few that they denied, HOWEVER, that does not excuse their initiation of several others nor does it excuse the full faith and credit they appear to give the Chief of Long Range Planning. A cursory review of the applications filed will indicate that a thorough analysis could not possibly have been done (as Mr. Utz claims) as there was little and in some cases none of the required documentation submitted. I guess the LUAC didn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

  7. JustinT

    Elena, you are so on top of it. Thank you for explaining this issue for people like me who never thought I should have cared about such things. One of the most important parts of a good democracy is an informed public.

    I would be so bummed about PWC right now if it weren’t for you and the existence of this internet town hall.

  8. Elena

    I’ll tell you, there is a kick butt group of women in Nokesville that make sure I stay informed, especially one woman. She is the force unto herself when it comes to the Rural Crescent and land use in general!

  9. ShellyB

    So that means the other three Supervisors voted the other way?

  10. food for thought

    Any word on the official breakdowns of each vote (echoing ShellyB’s comment).

Comments are closed.