Planners hear comp plan input

By Hannah Wever
Review Staff Writer

Published: October 9, 2008

A handful of revisions to the county’s comprehensive plan provoked a few comments from community members at an Orange County Planning Commission public hearing Oct. 2.
Some of the alterations Orange County Planning Commission members have recommended for the document include adding the word “rural” to the comprehensive plan’s vision statement, and adding a “Why Plan?“ section in order to address plan interpretation. Another recommended revision is lowering the county’s goal for an annual growth rate from 2 percent to 1 percent.
Proposed modifications to strategies for objective implementation center around topics like land use, environmental protection, water use and availability, and historic preservation. Other aspects involve economy, local government, infrastructure and education. Long-range planning for the county’s transportation needs is addressed in the planning commission’s comprehensive plan draft by including language which deals with multi-laning highways.
The comprehensive plan was adopted in 2006, but county supervisors wanted to reconsider a couple of key elements.
“You’ve met the board’s directive and it is their desire that you proceed with this,“ Orange County Director of Strategic Planning Debbie Kendall told the planning commission. Kendall commended planning commission members on the work they’d done on the comprehensive plan so far. The proposed changes to the plan, she said, accurately reflected the wishes of the Orange County Board of Supervisors by “tweaking the goals and objectives.“
But the tweaking planning commissioners had done to the comprehensive plan compelled some in the community to voice concern during last week’s public hearing.
John Bangs expressed gratitude for seeing the word “rural” back in the document’s vision statement, and for the target growth rate lowered from 2 percent to 1 percent. But, he added, more needed to be done to prevent explosive population growth within the county.
Growth should be directed to designated areas, Bangs suggested, and the towns of Orange and Gordonsville must work cooperatively with county planners to cap the growth rate at 1 percent.
Similar sentiments were echoed by subsequent speakers.
Mary Lou Seilheimer and Dan Holmes both spoke about the importance of future land use and designations.
“It is clearly the wish of citizens that Orange remain rural in character,“ Seilheimer said. “Revising Orange County’s future land use map is the right way to start.“
Further, Seilheimer said she advocated reducing the number of building lots within the county and discouraging the creation of additional building lots.
Holmes said replacing “rural” in the vision statement and setting a target growth rate of 1 percent were merely “symbolic” without a future land use map that is “representative of what we want to have in place.“
Steve Satterfield said the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were positive, but, he added, “I just don’t think it goes far enough. I hope you make some more changes before you pass it along to the board of supervisors.“
Additional changes, Satterfield said, could be to address growth by “cleaning up” the future land use map, and addressing growth in population centers like the towns of Orange and Gordonsville.
But there were speakers who felt some of the proposed changes were steps in the wrong direction at last Thursday are meeting.
David Heyl said he suspected limiting the growth rate to 1 percent would be too restrictive. 
And Fredericksburg Area Builders Association representative Harvey Gold warned that the county, amid the national economic downturn, would doom itself by limiting growth. Moreover, Gold said, the data used to determine the county’s recent growth rate is inaccurate.
“Extrapolations cannot be based on old information. One of the most striking things about the comprehensive plan is that the assumptions are based on pre-2006 data,“ Gold said. “A plan has to be based on the latest reliable information. It is outdated because of the current economic situation we’re in.“
Orange County businessman Ken Dotson spoke at the public hearing, imploring county officials to consider a more lenient approach to the target growth rate. A strict adherence to a 1 percent growth rate could continue to stifle local economy, and prevent the county from being financially “self-sufficient,“ Dotson told the planning commission.
“I live and breathe Orange and I see the plight that we have,“ Dotson said. “People need a step up. If you talk to people on the streets who are trying to derive their income from the town of Orange, it’s not pretty at 2 percent.“
Following the public comment, Orange County Director of Community Development David Grover told the planning commission he’d received 11 items of correspondence that should be entered into the minutes. Those letters and e-mails, he said, were for the most part largely supportive of the proposed lower target growth rate and language that reinforces a rural character for Orange.
To be certain all commission members had copies of all the correspondences, and to “digest” all the information, Orange County Planning Commission Chairman Will Likins suggested delaying the vote on the proposed comprehensive plan changes.
Grover supported a brief period for planning commission members to consider the comments made at last weeks public hearing.
“There’s a lot on your plate. There was a lot of information brought forward here,“ Grover said.
The planning commission will resume discussion of comprehensive plan revisions-and likely vote on whether to adopt those changes-at their Oct. 16 meeting.
The comprehensive plan, including proposed changes, is posted on the county’s website: http://www.orangecountyva.com.