Board meets with tough choices

Members of Stafford’s board of supervisors considered a difficult question recently: Should the county allow businesses that would generate substantial truck traffic to locate in the courthouse area?

Surely the majority of citizens would answer that question “no.” However, the supervisors went through an involved process at their March 18 business meeting before reaching their controversial “no” decision.

On the one hand, I see their action as an injustice to well-intentioned business owners. On the other, I see it as a bold, protective move for Stafford County as a whole.

In the past, Stafford encouraged development at an industrial park near Interstate 95 at the courthouse exit. At that time, county officials saw that as a logical place to attract revenue-producing industrial jobs.

Fast forward to March 2008. Business folks were set to expand existing industrial businesses in the courthouse area or bring in new businesses. Extensive preparations had come to fruition and the business owners were set to use their industrially zoned land for “by right” uses, the uses the county code allows with minimal interference.

Halt! Not so fast! Officials decided to pull a fast one and ram through a zoning designation change, preventing the business owners from proceeding with formalities prior to the Stafford County Planning Commission scheduled for the very next night.

Aquia District Supervisor Paul Milde and others had gotten wind of the pending industrial development — to include a truck service center — and started to worry that accompanying truck traffic would throw a wrench in plans for the courthouse area to become a pleasant walking community of upscale offices, shops and restaurants.

Who in their right mind, anyway, would want to add cement trucks and 18-wheelers to the heavily traveled Rt. 630 that carries commuters, students and government employees in much smaller, vulnerable vehicles?

To stave off the planned development, the supervisors applied to the planning commission to change the zoning of over 400 acres from industrial to business/commercial.

The planning commission thought those kinds of far-reaching zoning changes should occur with the pending update of the county’s comprehensive plan. So the commissioners voted to recommend against the rezoning, while the county staff — obviously under pressure to recommend for it - supported the supervisors’ desires.

At the March 18 board meeting, the public had an opportunity to express its views at an advertised public hearing.

The business owners and their supporters came forward to make compelling arguments for why the county shouldn’t strip them of their rights.
They urged the board to reject Milde’s proposal to rezone the area to B-2 (business/commercial), which would make current businesses non-conforming - setting in play all kinds of uncertainties and potential financial losses.

Aside from concerns over heavy truck traffic, the supervisors weren’t exactly sure where the planned improvements to the Rt. 630 interchange with I-95 would be located. Why allow a business to go in and then have to relocate it, at huge cost, when the road construction begins, they wondered.
Under timing pressures, the majority of supervisors decided that the change of zoning was necessary, without further study. If they hadn’t passed the change immediately, the businesses would be at the planning commission the next night formalizing their plans. The “by-right” projects, even with delays, would eventually have to be approved.

Still, there were other concerns on the minds of some supervisors. The B-2 zoning proposed by Milde is an intense commercial zoning designation that could stimulate Garrisonville Road-like development.

Some quick maneuvering by supervisor Harry Crisp of the George Washington District changed the zoning for the acreage in question to B-3, office zoning, with requires 30 percent open space. (Wouldn’t it be nice to have a town square with lawns and benches in the vicinity of our historic courthouse?)
Supervisor Milde voted against the office zoning. Perhaps he had a specific plan in mind that wouldn’t fit into that zoning?

Time will tell whether the jilted businesses owners will have a basis for legal claims. Regardless, they’ve got every right to be fuming.
The moral of the story: Comprehensive plans should be updated on schedule, protecting citizen interests and reducing the frequency of suspect, last-minute maneuvers by our elected officials.

Alane Callander is a south Stafford resident active in many local
causes. Reach her at info@staffordcountysun.com.