The Board of County Supervisors (BOCS) and Planning Commission (PC) should not consider changes to the zoning category densities in the Comprehensive Plan, primarily the SRR, as recommended by the CAC. (Specific changes are identified on the Attached Table related to the SRR and other categories, as well).
As a group, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Supervisors felt that the 1998 Comprehensive Plan was basically sound and did not need major amendments.
They decided to undertake an issue-oriented approach to the review. In January 2002 the BOCS and PC identified 23 "specific issues" for staff and citizens to analyze and make recommendations. None of these specific issues were intended to change densities with the possible exception of #23, which refers to land use around Metrorail, VRE and mass transit.
Any significant changes (specifically related to density increase) from the 1998 plan have not been sufficiently advertised to the public. Citizens of this county need to know if the county is planning to increase densities, therefore, increasing the need for more infrastructure before the county has caught up on current demand. The Chairman�s 2003 Annual Address indicated that it will be 5 more years before the schools meet demand (not to mention timeframe for other services such as transportation, fire/rescue, etc). No change of this type or magnitude should be considered without impact analysis and fair awareness to citizens that these densities are even being reconsidered.
These changes are not providing exception to the rule; they are changing the rule. The new language is "materially" different. The density will revert back to the pre-1998 standards of 1-5 acre lots in the SRR for purposes of evaluation and compliance with the Plan. Deleting the average planned density eliminates a tangible factor for controlled planning and replaces it with proposed evaluation criteria that is not clearly defined for use as the basis for density.
The new language implies that "encouraged" design and environmental strategies can provide sufficient density controls. The rationale that the "land will control" the density and that the 2.5 acre average will be fulfilled by the "nature of the land" is an intangible and unproved theory. Based on conflict between the County�s desire to predict and plan for growth and the constant pressure from developers to build as much as possible, the dependence on this theory for planning resources and infrastructure is unrealistic.
The BOCS is reducing tax rates but tax burden is not relieved because higher assessments are not offset by the reduction. The BOCS is not considering further reductions, at this time, because the additional funding is needed to help catch up with the necessary infrastructure to support the level of growth the county has experienced. Increasing densities will only magnify this problem which can not be resolved with more proffers if those proffers come with more development.
There is no need for these changes. The county is not lacking in development proposals. Current inventory is over 34,000. An average of 4500 homes are built each year (last 2-3 years avg.) indicating 7 years of backlog. The population has already experienced 13% growth over the last 2.5 years, which is 2 times greater than the estimated annual growth rate used in planning. Significant effort has been applied to estimating and planning LOS standards and balancing growth. Arbitrary reversal of the 1998 planned lower densities is not moving in the right direction.