Category: Debate Over Land Use Chapter of County Comprehensive Plan (2007-2010)

by Ralph Stephenson of Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth

1.  Members of the Board:  Thank you for all your service to the county.  Tonight, I urge you to reject the Planning Staff and Land Use Advisory Committee, or LUAC, recommendations on the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. As you may recall, the LUAC recommendations are outrageous, proposing 19 Centers of Community — 11 in the Haymarket, Gainesville, Bristow, Manassas area.  If each of these 19 centers builds 3,000 homes, which is about the same density level as the infamous 2005-06 Brentswood Project, and assuming the county’s average of three people per house, that would total 171,000 more people, a 50% increase in the population of the entire county.

Since the Planning Staff recommendations on residential housing, on closer examination, apparently set no real limits on housing and instead seem to allow “anything, anywhere, anytime” — and thus are not really a plan at all — I see no reason to believe that they will not ultimately move strongly in the direction of, even converge with the outrageous LUAC recommendations.

On the other hand, the Planning Commission recommendations actually would noticeably plan and channel residential growth in reasonable ways — in two areas of the county.

2.  As has been said and as subsequent events have proven so many times before, more residential housing will further crowd schools and roads, subsidize residential developers yet again with our taxpayer dollars to create unneeded housing in a still-extremely-glutted housing market, and thus further damage the property values and long-term viability of older neighborhood (At last count, there were still at least 25-30,000 approved, but not-yet-built homes in the county.)  More residential housing will also damage the county tax base, which is currently about 85% residential (higher taxes for you) and only 15% commercial.  And It will further harm the environment of beautiful (?? or soon-to-be-formerly-beautiful) western Prince William County.

It’s ironic that the county is considering making it even easier to build residential housing at the very time that the U.S. is trying to recover from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis brought on by, among other things:

1) massive housing industry overcapacity and oversupply (probably the single biggest cause);

2) political shenanigans by local and federal government officials allied to the housing industry, trying to keep demand artificially high to match the artificially high housing supply;

3) dishonest and predatory lending practices by many mortgage lenders to people who couldn’t afford the homes they were being sold; and

4) the financially toxic effect of these millions of now-non-performing (or bad) loans on the books of banks and other investors.

3.  Supervisor Covington, you represent my district, Brentsville District.  For many years you have supported every residential development I can think of — from Brentswood to Avendale to bringing sewer lines to the Rural Crescent, which is supposed to be off-limits to residential developers, so you can develop it, too.  You appointed a developer to the  Land Use Advisory Committee to make sure that residential developer interests were given preferential treatment.  You do not represent the interests of the vast majority of your constituents, though most are not yet aware of that.  Are you prepared to tell your constituents now that you really don’t care what they think because you’re a big landowner with lots of big landowner friends looking to make a killing off of taxpayer-subsidized real estate and county government bailouts of residential developers?  Are you willing to tell your ordinary constituents that the 10s of thousands of dollars of  campaign contributions you’ve received mostly from developers are far more important to you than their interests?  If so, then vote for the LUAC or Planning Staff Land Use plan.  Otherwise, if you respect the wishes of your ordinary constituents at least to some degree, I strongly urge you to vote for the Planning Commission Land Use recommendations.

Let there be no doubt:  It is in no way ethical or humanitarian or fiscally responsible or pro-free-market to support county taxpayer bailouts of residential developers and big landowners so they can build more unneeded and economically harmful housing.  Let’s call it by its real name:  political corruption and an abuse of supervisors’ sacred public trust.  Please support the Planning Commission  Land Use recommendations.  Thank you.

Gary Friedman, County Planning Commissioner

Ralph Stephenson and Bob Pugh, Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth

(e-mails read from top to bottom in reverse chronological order)

——– Original Message ——–

All:  Please spread the word and work to defeat the county government’s plan to further crowd schools and roads.  This plan will also subsidize residential developers yet again with your taxpayer dollars to create unneeded housing in a still-extremely-glutted housing market, and thus further damage the property values and long-term viability of older neighborhoods.  (At last count, the county still had a backlog of 25-30,000 approved, but not-yet-built homes.)   Furthermore, the plan will damage the county tax base, which is currently about 85% residential (higher taxes for you) and only 15% commercial.  And It will further harm the environment of beautiful (or soon-to-be formerly-beautiful) western Prince William County.

Below is a message I received 25 Jan 2010 from the Chairman of the County Planning Commission, the advisory body to the Board of County Supervisors.  See also recommendations and map below that.

My apologies if this message went to some of you twice.  : )  Ralph

____________________________________________________________

Ralph and Bob –

Anything you can do to help get the word out will be appreciated.  See below.  Thanks much.

Gary

On Tuesday, January 19th, after two years of collecting input from advisory bodies and planning staff, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors held what it indicated will be its only public hearing on what could possibly become the two most important Comprehensive Plan documents it considers during the current board’s tenure:  The Long Range Land Use and the Transportation chapters.

As the At-Large representative and current Chairman of the county’s Planning Commission, I have been closely involved in this process from the beginning.  Following the board hearing on the 19th, I received several comments from planning commissioners and numerous comments from citizens concerned about the direction the board seems to be headed with these two chapters.  I would like to share some of these concerns.

From all indications, the board seems to be headed for adoption of the planning staff text recommendations on these two chapters at its February 2nd meeting, with perhaps some minor “wordsmithing” modifications.  Citizens should know that the Planning Commission carefully considered the texts for both these chapters and found the staff recommendations problematic, particularly in the land use chapter.  None of these concerns have been addressed.  Space constraints here prevent a full discussion, so I will mention just a few of the major concerns with the land use chapter.  The planning staff text:

1.     Provides no incentives for focused, major development in the two areas of the county identified by the Planning Commission as most in need of redevelopment and revitalization, which already have the basic public infrastructure in place and are the most likely locations for future metro rail expansion from Fairfax into Prince William County:  North Woodbridge and Yorkshire.

2.    The “centers”, as proposed by staff, have been best described by a fellow planning commissioner as allowing “anything, anywhere, anytime”.   There is no limit on the number of these centers that could be advanced and the Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) located a large portion of them in the Brentsville District.  Planning staff proposes these “centers” comp plan amendment initiations be allowed without form, format, or defined content, other than a vague “mixed use” requirement, and without any major investment in the county or the process by the applicant, whenever a proposal is submitted.  It would then be left to staff to work out the details along the way, thus allowing unprecedented “flexibility”.  In this scenario I am sure staff would do the best job possible to “work out the details”.  But any such effort will, of necessity, be constrained by resources and staff availability.  Due to budget restraints and numerous department vacancies, planning staff is already stretched to its limits.  Does it make any sense to add what would surely become dramatic new burdens on an already overburdened department?  And if so, what would be the likely result?

3.    Provides no phasing structure on mixed use projects.  We’ve been down this road before.  How many times have mixed use projects been approved in the past, the residential component installed, then the commercial component left waiting for “the market to catch up”?  This scenario always results in more rooftops, more congested roads, more overcrowded schools, and less revenue for the county to meet it obligations because the commercial component either never happens or happens to such a minimal level as to fail to offset the budget burdens the new homes create.

4.    Fails to include the Planning Commission safeguards designed to protect the rural areas from encroachment.  Anyone who cares about advancing smarter growth principles knows encouraging and concentrating growth in the development area, and protecting rural areas from sprawl development, are key features.  While the planning staff text mentions smart growth principles, and makes plentiful use of smart growth language, the proposed details tell a very different story.
Citizens who care about what the future of Prince William County will look like should let their supervisors know of their concerns before the board’s February 2nd meeting, when it plans to act on these chapters.

Gary C. Friedman
Chairman of the Prince William County Planning Commission.

____________________________________________________________


Additional note from Ralph Stephenson:

RECOMMENDATION:  a) Contact all the BOCS Supervisors (the county’s land use decision makers) and let them know of your opposition to ~57,000 more unneeded homes,  ~33,000 of them in the Haymarket-Bristow-Manassas area. Here is their e-mail address:  BOCS@co.prince-william.va.us   It helps them to have your opposition as political cover to vote against unsavory plans that they’re under heavy pressure from powerful political interests to vote for.  b) Speak against the PW County Planning Staff’s Long-Range Land Use and Transportation Chapter updates to the county Comprehensive Plan at 7:30 pm on 2 Feb.  The meetings will be held at the McCoart Building at the county offices on Prince William Parkway.  (Note:  Since the Planning Staff recommendations on residential housing, on closer examination, apparently set no real limits on housing and instead seem to allow “anything, anywhere, anytime” — and thus are not really a plan at all — I see no reason to believe that they will not ultimately move strongly in the direction of, even converge with the county’s outrageous Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) recommendations described in this and the next paragraph.)

The [linked documents] at the bottom of this e-mail, which I took off the county website, summarize the current plan.  There are  19 planned Centers of Community — 11 in the Haymarket, Gainesville, Bristow, Manassas area, and 8 at the east end of the county.  If each of these 19 centers builds 3,000 homes, which is about the same density level as the infamous 2005-06 Brentswood Project, and assuming the county’s average of three people per house, that would total 171,000 more people, a 50% increase in the population of the entire county.

You might be interested to know that making this plan part of the county’s Comprehensive Plan, as proposed, will apparently fast-track the approval process for all residential development in the Centers of Community.

It’s ironic that the county is bringing this up for discussion at the very time that the U.S. is trying to recover from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis brought on by, among other things: massive housing industry overcapacity and oversupply (probably the single biggest cause); political shenanigans by local and federal government officials allied to the housing industry, trying to keep demand artificially high to match the artificially high housing supply; dishonest and predatory lending practices by many mortgage lenders to people who couldn’t afford the homes they were being sold; and the financially toxic effect of these millions of now-non-performing (bad) loans on the books of banks and other investors.

Centers of Community Locator Map
Centers of Commerce Locator Map

by Rose Murphy, Bull Run Observer

21 August 2009, p 4

“If you want to serve on a Prince William County board or commission that advises the county on land use, you have to file a financial disclosure statement, members of the county’s board of supervisors voted unanimously Aug. 4.

“The new requirement already has resulted in the resignation of Ann Burgess from the agricultural and forestry districts advisory committee, Wally Covington, (R-Brentsville), told the meeting.  The supervisor explained the committee resignation came about because Burgess ‘was upset regarding the disclosure form she has to sign.’ Her husband represents Brentsville District on the county’s planning commission.

“This disclosure form adopted by supervisors says non-salaried citizen members of any board, commission or council that supervisors might create to advise the board or the planning commission on land use policies affecting zoning or density of specific identifiable parcels in the county will be required to file a statement of economic interests prior to assuming office and annually thereafter.

“The form is due by Jan. 15 each year or prior to assuming office or employment and would be available to the public under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.  The clerk to the board of supervisors would retain the forms for five years.  The requirement to disclose is no retroactive.  Those needing to fill out the form include school board members, board of county supervisors, planning commission, board of zoning appeals, Prince William County Service Authority (PWCSA), county attorney county executive and deputy county executives and real estate assessors.

“Also completing the disclosure forms will be the finance director, planning director, the Dale City Sanitary District administrator and assistant administrator, the director of economic development, general manager of PWCSA, director and deputy director of the park authority and the director of the department of development services.

“The amendment to county code also adds that disclosure forms need to be filled out by members of the agricultural and forestry districts advisory committee, the architectural Review Board and the historical commission.  Jan Cunard, at-large member of the county’s historical commission, said Aug. 5 the disclosure form ‘is a good thing, and it should have been done a long time ago.’  She added she believes there are loopholes in the disclosure requirements, but this is a good first for step.

“Mike May, (R-Occoquan District), and Covington in March proposed changes to the county’s conflict-of-interest ordinance.

“Angela Horan, county attorney, told the Aug. 4 supervisors’ meeting that state law doesn’t give the county much authority to customize its local ordinance, but that ‘members of certain committees can be asked to file the short form.’  She added that supervisors can decide which committees will be required to complete the form.

“Covington noted county staff would report to the board in September or October on which other committees should be asked to disclose.  Public comment will be sought on this, he added.

“May made the motion to amend the existing code, noting the changes would bring more transparency to local government.”

by Ralph Stephenson of Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth

26 Nov 2008

——– Original Message ——–

All:  The county — following behind-the-scenes lobbying by local residential developers for many months, with virtually no effort to keep citizens informed or to receive broad-based input from them — is proposing that at least 30-35,000 homes (accommodating about 100,000 people) be built in the Haymarket-Gainesville-Bristow-Manassas area in the coming years.  If this does not sound to you like a good idea, I strongly urge you to get involved.

You can get involved by contacting the Board of County Supervisors.  I urge you to send e-mails opposing this idea, at least as currently written, to all eight members of the Board.  Here are e-mail addresses.

http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=040050000940000442

I also urge you to speak against this proposal at the Prince William County Planning Commission meeting on 3 Dec, Wednesday at 7 pm at the Board of Supervisors Chambers in the McCoart Building of the County Complex off the PW County Parkway.  (The Planning Commission is the primary land-use advisory body to the Board of Supervisors.)  I intend to be there to speak and would be happy to go early to sign up by 6:00 pm anyone else who would like to speak.  Let me know if you’d like me to do this for you.  Each speaker is limited to three minutes. There will almost certainly be a follow-up public hearing in January or later at which the Prince William Board of County Supervisors will vote on and decide the issue.  Please strongly consider speaking at that meeting as well.

If you have any questions, please let me know.  And please share this message with any of your friends/neighbors who you think would be interested.

It is my impression that you would like to receive e-mail alerts about major actions by your county government that affect you.  If not, please let me know right away so I can take you off the mailing list.

For those of you who were asking or who might be interested, here are links to info on the county Centers of Community Proposal.  The first is specific info.  The second is the homepage for Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth. (Note:  In this plan, the county is also proposing 6 “Centers of Commerce“, which have mixed housing, retail, and other commercial.  My view is that planning now for 1 or 2 of these in the county — maybe more later — could be reasonable, depending on a number of factors, including whether they are located around infrastructure that can handle them.)

pwcbg.org : Centers of Community/Commerce
http://pwcbg.org

Further info on the Centers of Community proposal and its likely impact is included below.

The county is proposing sweeping changes to how it accommodates future growth by designating 19 locations in the county as “Centers of Community”.  Centers of Community are  large areas (reportedly about one square mile) that are specifically planned for high-density housing.

The screenshot at the bottom of this e-mail, which I took off the county website, summarizes the current plan.  There are  19 planned Centers of Community — 11 in the Haymarket, Gainesville, Bristow, Manassas area, and 8 at the east end of the county.  If each of these centers builds 3,000 homes, which is about the same density level as the infamous 2005-06 Brentswood Project, and assuming the county’s average of three people per house, that would total 171,000 more people, a 50% increase in the population of the entire county.

See this link, noting particularly the land use update, for more info:
http://www.co.prince-william.va.us/default.aspx?topic=040073001410004148

You might be interested to know that making this plan part of the county’s Comprehensive Plan, as proposed, will effectively fast-track the approval process for all residential development in the Centers of Community.

I believe that nothing like this should be allowed to slip thru without thorough citizen input and thorough study and publicizing of its impact on:  1) traffic congestion; 2) overcrowding in schools; 3) property values in existing neighborhoods (oversupply drives down the value of your home and can eventually lead to older neighborhoods becoming blighted unnecessarily); 4) the county tax base (commercial development subsidizes the tax base while almost all residential development results in higher taxes for you); and 5) other quality-of-life issues including the environment.  Note:  Relative to the county tax base, all but the most expensive homes in the county are a net drain on county services and tax revenue.  This means that ultimately as a taxpayer you indirectly subsidize all the other, non-high-income housing, which the county, already glutted with thousands of foreclosed and unsold homes, doesn’t even need.  (By the way, those thousands of foreclosed and unsold homes can themselves become a significant tax burden on county taxpayers.)  And at last count, there were still 25-30,000 approved, but not-yet-built homes in the county.

It’s ironic that the county is bringing this up for discussion at the very time that the U.S. is in the middle of its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis brought on by, among other things, massive housing oversupply, predatory and dishonest lending practices by many mortgage lenders to people who couldn’t afford the homes they were being sold, and the financially toxic effect of these millions of now-non-performing (bad) loans on the books of banks and other investors. (Forbes magazine reported 2.2 million foreclosures in the U.S. in 2007 alone.)

Centers of Community Locator Map

Centers of Commerce Locator Map

by Cheryl Chumley, Bull Run Observer

7 November 2008

“Prince William County’s top prosecutor said Thursday his office is going forth with an investigation into conflict-of-interest issues surrounding certain land-use committee members and their alleged ability to gain financially from their positions.

“Committee members, meanwhile, say those accusations are off-base.

“The issue began in May 2007, when the Board of County Supervisors appointed eight citizens to a Land Use Advisory Committee [LUAC] to update one chapter of the county’s Comprehensive Plan. State code requires county governments to review Comp Plans every five years and revise or update as needed.

“Two of these appointees were developers.

“In April 2008, the LUAC members brought forth Smart Growth recommendations — as they were commissioned to do at the outset — that involved the creation of Centers of Commerce and Centers of Community. Part of this ‘Smart Growth’ strategy was to target certain areas for high-density development.

“It was the chosen locations for these proposed density increases that became problematic.

“On the heels of citizen complaints, Board of Supervisors vice chair John Stirrup, R-Gainesville, asked county attorney Ross Horton last month to investigate whether the proposed land-use changes included properties owned by the two developers on the LUAC, whether they disclosed their interests in line with state law, and whether their potential to benefit financially from these recommendations violated conflict of interest rules.

“In a letter dated Oct. 15, Horton put the matter onto Paul Ebert, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, for investigation. A week and a-half later, Ebert said he still hadn’t decided whether to go forward with formal questioning.

“On Thursday, however, he stated otherwise.

” ‘I’m trying to determine what interest in those properties those people have and then decide whether the [conflict of interest] statute applies,’ he said, confirming that his office was investigating the issue.

“Stirrup’s letter

“The timing of Ebert’s decision to investigate came around the same time frame as when Stirrup mailed his own letter to the Commonwealth Attorney requesting official action. But Stirrup also sent a copy of this letter to the Attorney General in Richmond. In it, Stirrup laid out several points that begged for investigation and reminded that ‘this is not the first time possible abuse of the Citizens Advisory Committee process has surfaced in Prince William County,’ the letter read.

“A similar scandal involving conflict of interest issues for committee appointees reared in 2000, Stirrup wrote, and Ebert’s subsequent investigation then found violations of the spirit, if not letter, of the law had occurred. This LUAC case is akin [to the 2000 conflict of interest allegations] in that ‘the basic disclosure, improper influence and participation issues seem to have close similarities,’ he wrote.

“Stirrup also explained in his letter his reasons for bringing the Attorney General’s office into the issue. Ebert, he wrote, has a ‘longstanding public association’ with the very same public official who appointed one developer to the LUAC.

” ‘Given that fact,’ Stirrup wrote, ‘it would seem prudent to suggest that engagement of an independent outside public prosecutor might serve to clear any public perceptions or misperceptions in this regard.’

“When asked about this letter and what finally led to his decision to pursue rather than drop the matter, Ebert said he had not heard from the Attorney General and that he chose to go forth with the investigation because it was his job.

” ‘That’s what I do,’ he said. ‘I investigate anybody. If somebody made a complaint alleging certain criminal complaints, I investigate it.’

“LUAC members, meanwhile, say the conflict of interest accusations have no legs.

“David Christiansen said he did not know the two developers personally on the committee prior to their appointments. But their experiences and knowledge proved valuable in the formation of land-use recommendations, especially those regarding the identification of commercial development areas, he said. Christiansen also said that from the outset, committee members were informed of the developers’ backgrounds.

” ‘It even came out they had some property [in the discussed areas],’ Christiansen said. ‘Everything was pretty much above board … and they didn’t have any direct influence. Obviously, they wanted certain things to happen to benefit them.’

“Personal interest

“But all committee members took a personal interest in the outcomes of the LUAC, he said, and were even asked to state their individual goals in early meetings.

” ‘My agenda was preserving the Rural Crescent,’ Christiansen said. ‘And my feeling was that knowing there were developers on the committee just added something to discussions.’

“Fellow committee member Tom Kopko, meanwhile, said that ‘by and large, the committee acted unanimously,’ so the policy recommendations and accompanying maps that emerged for Planning Commission and supervisors review represented the views of eight, not two.

“Mark Granville-Smith, one of the developers on the committee, said he would be happy to discuss the issue with Ebert as the investigation progressed. But he also added that the entire committee process was open to the public, that the meetings were recorded, and that the recommendations that came forth not only followed Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor guidelines to create some Smart Growth strategies, but that were just that — recommendations. All Comp Plan changes are still subject to final board approval.

“Moreover, Granville-Smith said, the committee simply recommended overlay areas on the map. Each development proposal for these areas would still have to go through the normal Planning Commission and Boardof Supervisor process for approval, which includes public hearing, he said.

“The other developer on the committee, Charles Rector [of Weber-Rector, Inc.], did not return a telephone call for comment.

“Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907.”

by Rose Murphy, Bull Run Observer

31 October 2008, pp 16-17

“Revisions to the land use and transportation chapters of Prince William County’s comprehensive plan will be coming back to the county’s Planning Commission December 3. At its October 8 special session, the commission agreed unanimously that the chapters needed additional work and clarification. A Planning Commission work session was set for Oct. 15 on the proposed revisions.

“By a 5 to 3 vote, commissioners recommended approving changes to the comprehensive plan’s housing chapter. This chapter is set for a public hearing before Prince William Board of County Supervisors Dec. 2.

“State code requires the Planning Commission to review the comprehensive plan every five years to determine if amendments are needed. The plan last was revised in 2003.

“In May 2007, the county’s Board of Supervisors named an eight-man Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) to study changes to the land use chapter. Other committees were set up to study the transportation and housing chapters.

“The LUAC committee met at least twice each month for 11 months, and was chaired by Tom Kopko. Each member of the Board of Supervisors named a representative to LUAC.

“During the Oct. 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, John Stirrup, (R-Gainesville), asked residents to attend the special Planning Commission meeting the following night. He asserted there were several land use changes proposed, including designating ‘12,566 acres of urban town center development…under the guise of 25 centers of commerce or centers of community throughout the county.’  He added he’d heard from several citizens about a possible conflict of interest of some members of LUAC, and questioned whether decisions made by them ‘may have personal benefit to them’ if the land use comp plan changes are instituted.

“Stirrup asked Ross Horton, county attorney, to investigate the possible conflict of interest, but Horton noted such an investigation or inquiry would have to be done by the Commonwealth Attorney’s office. The board agreed to have the Commonwealth Attorney check into the matter.

“The land use plan says centers of commerce ‘would be planned urban town centers where a variety of activities with a regional draw allows people to work, shop, dine, live and enjoy entertainment.’ These centers would have easy access to major transportation hubs, commuter rail, express bus service and commuter parking.

“LUAC defined a center of community as ‘neighborhood centers for residences to live, shop, dine, recreate and congregate.’ They should contain a mix of uses, with low to mid-rise offices serving a local market, neighborhood-serving retail, high- and low-density housing and institutional uses.

“The Board of Supervisors at its May 20 meeting decided unanimously to initiate the land use and housing updates to the comp plan. But Marty Nohe, (R-Coles), noted that the part of the plan dealing with semi-rural residential (SRR) uses ‘needs a lot of love.’

“David McGettigan of the county’s Planning Office told the Oct. 8 meeting the land use plan contains six centers of commerce and 19 centers of community.

“More than 50 people addressed the Oct. 8 meeting, speaking for and against the land use and transportation chapter changes. Only two county residents spoke on the housing chapter.

“David Blake, Brentsville District, told the hearing tourism is the second largest industry in Virginia. He added that making U.S 29 a six-lane highway in the Buckland area will ‘jeopardize Buckland’s integrity.’

“Laurie Wieder, president of Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce, said she’d reviewed the comp plan chapters under discussion, adding ‘We say yes to the centers of commerce and centers of community as a strong planning tool.’ She noted she favored flexibility in the planning and zoning process in the county.

“Mark Granville-Smith, Brentsville District, the Woodbridge appointee to the LUAC and a county developer, asserted it ‘was no secret’ he ‘was in the building business.’ He said he was proud to have served on the LUAC, and that the committee had had ‘lots of input from citizens.’ He added, ‘I can assure you that I had no interest in property that was not disclosed.’ He added smart growth is ‘difficult to understand.’

“Mary Ann Ghadban, a commercial real estate broker, told the hearing business wouldn’t come to the county because it has no identification or destination. She added the centers ‘would create the allure.’

“Bryanna Altman, Coles District, explained she supported the centers of commerce, but not their locations. She recommended involving professional consultants who use smart growth methods.

“Bob Weir asserted that parts of the plan were flawed. He said the plan ‘is tainted by allegations of improprieties,’ and asked recommendations on the chapters be deferred.

“John Dawson, Brentsville District, recommended concentrating on improving the US 1 corridor. ‘This could be the gateway to Prince William. Make it a showcase. Start here. We’re missing the boat by spreading development across the county,’ Dawson contended.

“Michele Trenum, Brentsville District, said that, as a daughter of a commercial real estate broker, she respects the development community, ‘but when people pursue their own personal business in drafting the plan, we lack the balance required for public trust.

” ‘When the fox guards the hen house, you got a problem, but when the fox gets out his pencil and draws up the plans for the hen house, you’ve got big problems,’ Trenum noted.

“She added she was not criticizing LUAC as a group, but that conflict of interest laws ‘simply say if a LUAC member has a personal or business interest in a piece of land, he cannot discuss or vote on any change for that land.’

“Trenum said there is no problem with a developer serving on LUAC.

” ‘However, it is not fine to have that developer discussing or voting on his own land,’ she contended.

“Ralph Stephenson, Prince William Citizens for Balanced Growth, noted there would be 13 centers in the western part of the county, and 12 in the east. He said the centers could bring 225,000 more people to the county. He added that most homes are a net financial drain on the county.

” ‘I’m on the mailing list for all county information, and I never saw anything about this,’ Stephenson said. ‘The publicity was not sufficient. There should be a thorough public study of the true cost [before] this is approved.’

“Greg Ayers, Manassas, said proposed center sites ‘were plopped down and called a plan… It’s a concept disguised as a plan.’ He asked the Planning Commission not to approve the land use plan without ‘detailed information on the centers.’ “