Independent Hill Small Area Plan
Below are MIDCO letters to the Planning Commission on this plan. Below that is a link to the current plan.
December 7, 2020
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We have an excellent opportunity before us with the Independent Hill Small Area Plan that you will vote on this week. This is a chance to reset our future planning processes to avoid negative outcomes and achieve projects and plans that everyone can support from the beginning.
More and more, the county has relied on outside consultants to formulate and facilitate plans. It has become obvious that we need to rely more on our residents and staff to decide how our county develops than on outside contractors whose perspective doesn’t necessarily reflect that of folks who have lived here for years.
This project is a perfect illustration of the problem. Even after hearing from the public during the charette process, the consultant originally came up with a plan that was much more intense than the community wanted or that made sense for the area. It was almost comically so. This has resulted in a dragged-out process that has lasted for years as the community voiced their opposition and the plan was revised down in intensity. This flawed process has been mirrored by the situation with the Rural Preservation Study.
Even now, after hearing from the community and years of discussion, the plan still doesn’t fit with the surrounding area in terms of transportation, housing density or intensity, or in respect to the rural area. There’re still too many homes, the lot sizes are too small, the buffers are inadequate, there’s no realistic transit options, and commercial development is proposed in the rural area near a national park.
It’s been said that some in the community just don’t want development and oppose everything. In terms of MIDCO and most residents we’ve heard from, nothing could be further from the truth. Folks just want their county to listen to the residents, not outside consultants, and work with them to develop at the appropriate intensity in the appropriate areas. We urge you to recommend denial on this Small Area Plan as proposed and we urge that in the future the county start by listening to the residents (and hearing them) from the beginning and come up with reasonable plans that reflect the community’s preferences right from the start.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
July, 2020
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As you evaluate the Independent Hill Small Area Plan, please consider the following:
1. Does this level of intensity- three-story townhouses and condominiums, almost 4,000,000 square feet of non-residential space- match with what’s around the project? Does it fit in with the surrounding community?
2. What problem are we trying to solve here? What is the driver for this type of intensity?
3. Is it wise to build this type of intensity in an area at least 9 miles from transit in one direction and 13 miles in the other? If adopted as policy, wouldn’t this distance from transit open up a lot of other areas in the county to intense development?
4. If we want transit-friendly multi-modal communities, is this a good place for it? Do we build these intense communities in areas without transit like this and then modify the transportation plan to accommodate them? Is this fiscally responsible?
I’m sure you understand how important this plan will be as a guide to future development in the county. Do we concentrate intense development where services and transportation opportunities exist, or do we build high-density nodes willy-nilly around the county and try to fund the transportation and services in the future? Is that practice sustainable and fair to the taxpayers?
I urge you to keep the above in mind as you decide on this plan.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As you evaluate the Independent Hill Small Area Plan, I urge you to consider one important aspect of the history of this area that’s not mentioned in the staff report. Reference is made to the “Barnes house,” but not the significance of that home. The Eppa Barnes story is one of triumph over racism, slavery and oppression to thrive and achieve prosperity.
Independent Hill was the home of Eppa Barnes, who had once been enslaved on a farm there. Eppa returned to the area in 1875 and married Amanda Lambert. In 1899, they purchased the Copen Farm, part of the farm where Eppa had been a slave. The enterprising couple was very successful, and over their lifetime bought more than 300 acres surrounding the home and raised 12 children there. More info here: https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/park/hp/Pages/Barnes-House.aspx
Their home was saved from destruction and moved out of the way of construction when Rt. 234 was widened. It was moved to the landfill and then to Montclair.
The land area that was probably part of their farm is shown on the draft plan to be Public Facility Office. We are still working on determining the actual property outline of the Barnes farm, but since this area is also within the Rural Crescent and the legislative boundary of Prince William Forest Park, I urge you to leave this area as parkland. Once the documentation is complete, we could possibly even move the Barnes home back to the old farm area where it belongs. This could provide a valuable teaching opportunity for young people and others.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
December 7, 2020
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We have an excellent opportunity before us with the Independent Hill Small Area Plan that you will vote on this week. This is a chance to reset our future planning processes to avoid negative outcomes and achieve projects and plans that everyone can support from the beginning.
More and more, the county has relied on outside consultants to formulate and facilitate plans. It has become obvious that we need to rely more on our residents and staff to decide how our county develops than on outside contractors whose perspective doesn’t necessarily reflect that of folks who have lived here for years.
This project is a perfect illustration of the problem. Even after hearing from the public during the charette process, the consultant originally came up with a plan that was much more intense than the community wanted or that made sense for the area. It was almost comically so. This has resulted in a dragged-out process that has lasted for years as the community voiced their opposition and the plan was revised down in intensity. This flawed process has been mirrored by the situation with the Rural Preservation Study.
Even now, after hearing from the community and years of discussion, the plan still doesn’t fit with the surrounding area in terms of transportation, housing density or intensity, or in respect to the rural area. There’re still too many homes, the lot sizes are too small, the buffers are inadequate, there’s no realistic transit options, and commercial development is proposed in the rural area near a national park.
It’s been said that some in the community just don’t want development and oppose everything. In terms of MIDCO and most residents we’ve heard from, nothing could be further from the truth. Folks just want their county to listen to the residents, not outside consultants, and work with them to develop at the appropriate intensity in the appropriate areas. We urge you to recommend denial on this Small Area Plan as proposed and we urge that in the future the county start by listening to the residents (and hearing them) from the beginning and come up with reasonable plans that reflect the community’s preferences right from the start.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
July, 2020
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As you evaluate the Independent Hill Small Area Plan, please consider the following:
1. Does this level of intensity- three-story townhouses and condominiums, almost 4,000,000 square feet of non-residential space- match with what’s around the project? Does it fit in with the surrounding community?
2. What problem are we trying to solve here? What is the driver for this type of intensity?
3. Is it wise to build this type of intensity in an area at least 9 miles from transit in one direction and 13 miles in the other? If adopted as policy, wouldn’t this distance from transit open up a lot of other areas in the county to intense development?
4. If we want transit-friendly multi-modal communities, is this a good place for it? Do we build these intense communities in areas without transit like this and then modify the transportation plan to accommodate them? Is this fiscally responsible?
I’m sure you understand how important this plan will be as a guide to future development in the county. Do we concentrate intense development where services and transportation opportunities exist, or do we build high-density nodes willy-nilly around the county and try to fund the transportation and services in the future? Is that practice sustainable and fair to the taxpayers?
I urge you to keep the above in mind as you decide on this plan.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As you evaluate the Independent Hill Small Area Plan, I urge you to consider one important aspect of the history of this area that’s not mentioned in the staff report. Reference is made to the “Barnes house,” but not the significance of that home. The Eppa Barnes story is one of triumph over racism, slavery and oppression to thrive and achieve prosperity.
Independent Hill was the home of Eppa Barnes, who had once been enslaved on a farm there. Eppa returned to the area in 1875 and married Amanda Lambert. In 1899, they purchased the Copen Farm, part of the farm where Eppa had been a slave. The enterprising couple was very successful, and over their lifetime bought more than 300 acres surrounding the home and raised 12 children there. More info here: https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/park/hp/Pages/Barnes-House.aspx
Their home was saved from destruction and moved out of the way of construction when Rt. 234 was widened. It was moved to the landfill and then to Montclair.
The land area that was probably part of their farm is shown on the draft plan to be Public Facility Office. We are still working on determining the actual property outline of the Barnes farm, but since this area is also within the Rural Crescent and the legislative boundary of Prince William Forest Park, I urge you to leave this area as parkland. Once the documentation is complete, we could possibly even move the Barnes home back to the old farm area where it belongs. This could provide a valuable teaching opportunity for young people and others.
Respectfully,
Martin Jeter
Here's a link to the November, 2020 version of the plan:
| ih_draft_2020_1123.pdf |
Here's a link to the July, 2020 version of the plan:
| independent_hill_sap_07_02_20.pdf |
Here's a link to the second version of the Small Area Plan released in early September:
| masterdocument_indpendenthillsap-3.pdf |
Here's a link to the original proposed county plan: https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/planning/Documents/MasterDocument_IndpendentHillSAP.pdf
Below is the plan that features five story buildings and up to 800 housing units in the area south of Rt. 234.
