|
|
|
| Tue, Nov. 24 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Stafford board hears Comp Plan criticisms
Stafford supervisors spend evening listening to comments about Comprehensive Plan
UPDATE:
Comp Plan Crashes After a lengthy public hearing last night, the Stafford Board of Supervisors failed to approve an updated comprehensive plan. The 4—3 vote against approval was the final blow for a plan that was in the works for three and a half years. Supervisors Harry Crisp, George Schwartz and Bob Woodson voted to approve the plan. Immediately following that vote, Supervisor Cord Sterling made a motion to send the comprehensive plan back to the Planning Commission, where they will begin the process anew, but will use the proposed plan as a starting point. Sterling’s motion passed 6—1, with Schwartz dissenting. Every supervisor I spoke to after the meeting was pleased with the "core" of the plan, and felt that it would eventually pass without major changes. There were enough smaller issues to cause concern, however, and a majority of the board felt they needed more time to work out the details. - Jonas Beals
Date published: 10/7/2009 BY JONAS BEALS Stafford supervisors resumed their discussion of the county's Comprehensive Plan last night. This time, Planning Commission members were sitting alongside supervisors as they listened to comments from the public in a joint public hearing.
Officials met to make further recommendations to the plan and to potentially accept it with a vote. Discussion was ongoing as of press time, and no decision had been made by the board.
Planning Director Jeff Harvey introduced the document as designed to "guide coordinated and harmonious development of the county."
The Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint for future growth in Stafford. It does not change or dictate the existing zoning of property, but it does suggest desired future uses. This particular rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan has been in the works for 3 years.
Despite multiple hearings, work sessions and meetings, residents still had a number of concerns about the proposed plan.
Transportation issues were raised, as some residents expressed concern that new roads were not considered in the plan. Harvey admitted that the plan addressed transportation in general terms.
Patricia Kurpeil, who was involved with developing the proposed plan, asked the board to deny it.
"The plan is not feasible because the transportation item has not been addressed," she said.
Her concern was a financial one--she questioned how the county would ever pay for the roads needed to serve expected growth.
Some landowners questioned the location of the urban services area boundary--the line that determines where public water and sewer will be available. The Blaisdell family wanted to know why their family farm, which they are in the process of trying to sell, was left out of the urban services area.
A few Widewater peninsula residents also spoke up at the meeting, questioning why their property was designated as parkland. Indeed, the entire peninsula was shaded green to represent a desire for parks.
Some of those Widewater residents were motivated to attend the public hearing when they received a flier suggesting Stafford would buy or use eminent domain to take their property. Planning Commissioner Cecilia Kirkman explained that this was not the case, but that reassurance was not enough for some people.
Date published: 10/7/2009
???
(posted by
INeedRights2
, Oct. 7, 2009 9:27 pm)
They havent know whats going on for quite sometime up there....
20K homes will generate an additional 200K
(posted by
larryg
, Oct. 7, 2009 6:13 pm)
auto trips per day. To get some perspective on this - Route 17
has about 60-80K per day on it.
What about schools & public safety
(posted by
DeanFetterolf
, Oct. 7, 2009 4:43 pm)
20K new homes at current demographics (3 per family members per household and 20% of population being school aged) would yield about 13,000 more school kids. Where in the plan is the need for additional schools presented? What about increased public safety demands?
Who sent the fliers?
(posted by
becjack
, Oct. 7, 2009 12:32 pm)
Just curious about the fliers to the Widewater residents suggesting they could lose their property via eminent domain. Who sent them??
That's just it! Its so typical
(posted by
Lespaul
, Oct. 7, 2009 12:25 pm)
Build all the crap, but don't worry about transportation.
You build thousands of houses on a 2 lane road and wonder why we have traffic issues. DUH!!!
|
 |
|||
|
|||
