Parks, Trails & Open Space
January 15 Board of Supervisors Worksession - Overview
Click here to read the Planning Staff's Draft Proposal for the February 26 2008 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing and Vote on Parks, Trails & Open Space.
At the start of the January 15 Board of Supervisors meeting, 13 citizens spoke on Parks, Trails and Open Space. Ten citizens from Occoquan, Coles, Dale City, Dumfries, Brentsville, and Gainesville Districts spoke to the need for high standards, a countywide trail network and called for the County to explore a variety of funding opportunities to secure adequate parkland. Three citizens from Brentsville and Gainesville Districts spoke to express their concerns that private property owners would be required to participate in the development of a countywide trail network. The Prince William Conservation Alliance presented a series of questions that should be answered before decisions are finalized, which are, posted on the left column of this page.
The worksession presentation on Parks, Trails and Open Space focused heavily on current budget issues. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time fiscal impacts have played a leading role in the Board's consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendments and we can't wait to hear the discussion when the Transportation Chapter is reviewed this coming spring. Read more�
The worksession revealed that there is still confusion about the difference between Parks and Open Space. Although Parks and Open Space are fundamentally different, they have many common characteristics that can seem confusing at first glance. The draft chapters submitted by citizens recognized this and sought to resolve the problem by (1) emphasizing clear definitions, and (2) recommending a separation of the current combined chapter for Parks and Open Space into one chapter for Parks and another for Open Space. Read more�
There also appears to be confusion about the difference between County parkland and federal and state parkland. Again, there are fundamental differences that place state and federally owned parkland in a category not covered by Comprehensive Plan goals or action strategies. Read more�
Several opportunities to secure parkland at little or no cost to taxpayers were identified and discussed. Read more...
Supervisors also were interested in making sure the Silver Lake property could be included in the County Parkland Inventory. Read more...
Questions about trails, strongly supported by citizens, largely focused on concerns about private property. Planning Director Steve Griffin said that private property would be included as part of a trail only if the landowner was a willing participant. Read more...
Griffin stated that staff has three fundamental differences with the Planning Commission recommendation. In contrast to the Planning Commission, County staff recommends lower overall goals, supports developer credits for private parkland and includes lands �protected� by mechanisms the County cannot enforce as protected open space. Read more�
What is the difference between Parks and Protected Open Space?
There is still considerable confusion about these definitions. Perhaps the best, most clear definitions come from a combination of the Planning Commission and citizen recommendations:
Protected Open Space means land that is protected from development with a perpetual conservation or open space easement or fee ownership, held by federal, state, or local government or nonprofit organization for natural resource, forestry, agriculture, wildlife, recreation, historic, cultural, or open space use, or to sustain water quality and living resource values.
In many cases, undeveloped parkland could also be categorized as protected open space. Undeveloped acreage in a park would typically qualify as protected open space if the management plan for the park states that the acreage will not be developed for parking lots, swimming pools, etc.
Protected open space is not always a "park." Parks must be open for public use. Private property, such as land under a conservation easement, may be protected open space but closed to public use, so some protected open space is not parkland.
Would the Silver Lake property count as part of the County's parkland inventory if the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy proposal was approved?
According to the Planning Commission and citizen proposals, the Silver Lake property as well as the additional 270-acre adjacent property BRMC proposes to contribute to the project would both count in the County's inventory because the County would control both public access and uses through deed restrictions and a use agreement. The BRMC proposal for Silver Lake could add 500 acres to the County's Parkland Inventory at no cost to taxpayers.
According to Planning Director Steve Griffin's presentation, the version recommended by staff would not allow Silver Lake to be included in the County's parkland inventory.
Supervisor Caddigan commented that this could influence the Board's decision on which proposal will be approved for Silver Lake � the Park Authority or Bull Run Mountain Conservancy.
Supervisor May asked staff to provide draft language that would allow the Board to both approve the BRMC proposal and count the property in the County parkland inventory.
Would state and federally owned parkland count as part of the County Parkland Inventory?
According to the Planning Commission and citizen proposals, state and federally owned parkland would not be included in the inventory of County parkland because it is not County parkland. The state and federal government secures parkland in locations that support their state and federal goals, with little if any input from County government. In addition, state and federal parkland uses as well as public access is determined by state and federal agencies, with little if any input from County government.
Brentsville and Coles Supervisors Covington and Nohe said they thought the definition for Parks should focus on public access rather than ownership, indicating their current support for including state and federally owned parkland in the inventory of County parkland.
Although state and federal investments can enhance local parkland goals and benefits, they cannot replace the need for a comprehensive network of parkland intended to serve the active and passive recreation needs of County residents, attract business investments and protect homeowner property values.
The Planning Commission recommended a goal of 25 acres/1,000 people of county parks. Federal and state regulations can be very restrictive, severely limiting activities such as jogging or even walking a dog on a leash. County parks offer county residents much more flexibility in how to play.
The Comprehensive Plan is a County document intended to guide County goals and actions, not state or federal goals or actions. Fairfax County, among others, does not include state, federal or regional parkland in their inventories of County parkland, which is currently 25 acres/1,000 residents.
Would state and federally owned parkland count as part of the County Open Space Inventory?
Yes. According to all draft plans � Planning Commission, staff and citizen � the County's Open Space Inventory would include all land that is protected from development, whether or not those properties are open to public uses.
Fiscal Impacts
The worksession on Parks, Trails & Open Space opened with cautionary words about the fiscal impacts from County Executive Craig Gerhart.
Planning Director Steve Griffin presented information on the costs associated with each proposed standard. According to Griffin , these costs were developed based on the assumption that taxpayers would have to fund 100% of parkland acquisition costs at the rate of $80,000/acre.
Chairman Stewart observed that these costs had not been adjusted to reflect the downturn in the real estate market, which would affect the per acre cost of land, and they also did not consider the variety of funding opportunities available to supplement taxpayer investments for parkland acquisition. At different points in the discussion, Dale City and Woodbridge Supervisors Jenkins and Principi expressed similar concerns.
Griffin provided separate figures for the costs to develop facilities. Although only a portion of parkland is developed, staff did not include information on the percentage of developed v. undeveloped (natural areas) parkland acres they used to develop these estimates.
Coles Supervisor Nohe pointed out that costs to maintain new facilities were not included. Occoquan Supervisor May observed that the primary goal was to acquire parkland, which did not need to be developed immediately.
Planning staff has three fundamental differences with the Planning Commission.
- The Planning Commission (and citizens) supports 25 acres/1,000 residents while staff recommends 15 acres/1,000 residents.
- The Planning Commission (and citizens) wants developers to proffer public parkland. Staff would prefer to give developer a credit for providing parks that will be open only to a specific set of homeowners , members of the developer-created Home Owner Associations (HOA's).
- The Planning Commission (and citizens) recommendation defines protected open space as land that is protected from development with a perpetual conservation or open space easement or fee ownership, held by federal, state, or local government or nonprofit organization for natural resource, forestry, agriculture, wildlife, recreation, historic, cultural, or open space use, or to sustain water quality and living resource values. The staff recommendation includes additional lands that are �protected� by mechanisms the County cannot enforce , such as HOA policies .
Parkland - Opportunities Identified
Acquisition of Stream Valley.
Griffin said that Fairfax County has actively pursued acquisition of Resource Preservation Areas before land was developed, which has turned out to be a significant amount of land that provides for a significant number of public trails. Prince William has assumed costs to upgrade and maintain stormwater management ponds built by home developers, but has obtained very little public access to stream valleys where trails could be located. This is a great idea that Prince William could begin immediately with no need for taxpayer dollars!
Silver Lake � Proposed Public/Private Partnership
Approval of the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy proposal for Silver Lake would add 500 acres of parkland to the County inventory at no cost to taxpayers. The Board will be deciding the outcome of Silver Lake after the Parks and Open Space plan is approved. How the Board decides to resolve questions about how or if Silver Lake will be included in the County parkland inventory will likely play a key role in this decision. Read more�
Dove's Landing
This 225-acre property at the confluence of Cedar Run and Broad Run, with one mile of frontage along the Occoquan River , which was already purchased with taxpayer dollars, could be protected by a conservation easement and opened to public passive recreation uses at virtually no cost to taxpayers.
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge
This 325 acres of Potomac River waterfront, at the Rippon Landing VRE station, includes bottomland hardwood forest. Bald eagles have maintained a nest within or adjacent to the refuge for a number of years. However, the site is closed to the public. The county could urge the US Fish and Wildlife Service to open the refuge for wildlife viewing and passive recreation use, perhaps through a cooperative agreement with the state Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, at virtually no cost to county taxpayers.
Trails
The worksession included discussion about the proposed Countywide Trail Network Plan. Planning Director Steve Griffin said that staff is recommending a goal of 500 trail miles and that approximately 1/3 of these trail miles are currently in place. No information was given on what percentage of these trail miles would be VDOT bike lanes.
Griffin also explained clearly that private property would be included as part of a trail only if the landowner is a willing participant. Supervisor Nohe and Caddigan requested refined language clarifying that private property would not be condemned to acquire trail segments. Supervisor Covington also shared his lack of support for trails in the rural area.
Both the Planning Commission and citizens have supported the development of a Countywide Trail Network Plan. Both have supported the forming of a Trail Commission, which the Planning Commission recommends forming under the Park Authority and citizens recommend an independent commission that could serve as a focal point and where County, VDOT and other trails could come together. Either way, a county that claims that it wants to be a good place to live, work, and play needs to plan for more than just asphalt trails built by VDOT along major highways.
