It's Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Today, previews of the Stafford BOS and the Fredericksburg City Council meetings, candidates respond to Sierra Club, and city School Board finds Ward 3 replacement.
Comment on the City of Fredericksburg plan to amend the City Code at the 9-24-25 Planning Commission meeting. This public comment is submitted to be read out loud at tonight's 9-23-25 City Council meeting because it relates to 'business before the city'.
It is about agenda item 8A on the agenda of the Fredericksburg Planning Commission. Here is the agenda item which is available on the city website with links to see what's going to significantly impact resident input into site plans and subdivisions by shutting us out of public comments to make all decisions re: Land Use, not through our input, but by a staff administrative review. That's not FAIR government:
8.A.
UDOTA FY25-04, Subdivisions and Site Plans:
The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend City Code to Implement Changes to Local Development Review Processes (site plans and subdivisions) Adopted by the 2025 Virginia General Assembly.
Documents:
01 Staff Memo.pdf
02 UDOTA Ordinance.pdf
03 Senate Bill 974.pdf
04 HB2660 Chaptered.pdf
05 Res25-59.pdf
I am writing to express concern about the agenda item to be presented at a specially-called Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, 9-24-25: The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend City Code to Implement Changes to Local Development Review Processes (site plans and subdivisions) Adopted by the 2025 Virginia General Assembly.
As a member of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition, as well as longtime residents who follow city government agendas, we have seen the value of citizen input through public comment on Land Use decisions, as well as the role that the Planning Commission has in our community.
For example: A developer comes in with a plan to do streets 20 ft. wide. As per this city memo, the plan would go to staff for review and they approve. Neighborhood gets 20 ft. streets.
However, if citizen input is allowed, staff learns from neighbors who express concern that in one section, a 22 ft wide portion is required for safety. Staff and developer agree with the resident input and change their plan based on resident input. Result? Safer streets.
It is just good policy to involve residents: 'Nothing about us, without us'.
We ask that you do NOT take action. Please let the public have input.
We think that the city may have discretion in the interpretation of what the 2025 Virginia General Assembly adopted.
We think the city has some leeway, some 'wiggle room' in this process. and that it does NOT mean that the public has no input.
Amending the City Code would take away all input from the Planning Commission and site plans. Those decisions would solely be in the hands of city staff and diminish the power of the Planning Commission AND the public.
We ask that the Planning Commissioners request that the city attorney, Kelly Lackey, attend the Wednesday 9-24-25 meeting 'in person'. We request that the Planning Commission asks her how she interprets this UDO TA, Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 2660 in contrast to what is stated in the staff memo from Senior Development Administrator Marne Sherman.
What 'flexibility' do we have as a city?
Sometimes there is a self-executing statute, but most laws affecting local government have LOCAL discretion built into them.
We want to know if this is a case where there is some discretion for the locality to consider? Can staff still impose an 'administerial' act and not a 'legislative' act because 'administerial' is what a locality has to do?
We realize that even with ministerial acts, the city has to have public input. There is an incredible amount of bureaucracy involved to get city tasks accomplished. This could be an attempt to ease the bureaucracy but is this the Best way?
Bureaucracy and rules slow things down. But: That's a part of 'fair' government in which citizens have input to the decisions affecting them.
Finally and frankly, this is another step in the long-term campaign plans of BUILDERS & REALTORS in Virginia to take away local control over land use by shutting out the public entirely.
Comment on the City of Fredericksburg plan to amend the City Code at the 9-24-25 Planning Commission meeting. This public comment is submitted to be read out loud at tonight's 9-23-25 City Council meeting because it relates to 'business before the city'.
It is about agenda item 8A on the agenda of the Fredericksburg Planning Commission. Here is the agenda item which is available on the city website with links to see what's going to significantly impact resident input into site plans and subdivisions by shutting us out of public comments to make all decisions re: Land Use, not through our input, but by a staff administrative review. That's not FAIR government:
8.A.
UDOTA FY25-04, Subdivisions and Site Plans:
The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend City Code to Implement Changes to Local Development Review Processes (site plans and subdivisions) Adopted by the 2025 Virginia General Assembly.
Documents:
01 Staff Memo.pdf
02 UDOTA Ordinance.pdf
03 Senate Bill 974.pdf
04 HB2660 Chaptered.pdf
05 Res25-59.pdf
I am writing to express concern about the agenda item to be presented at a specially-called Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, 9-24-25: The City of Fredericksburg proposes to amend City Code to Implement Changes to Local Development Review Processes (site plans and subdivisions) Adopted by the 2025 Virginia General Assembly.
As a member of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition, as well as longtime residents who follow city government agendas, we have seen the value of citizen input through public comment on Land Use decisions, as well as the role that the Planning Commission has in our community.
For example: A developer comes in with a plan to do streets 20 ft. wide. As per this city memo, the plan would go to staff for review and they approve. Neighborhood gets 20 ft. streets.
However, if citizen input is allowed, staff learns from neighbors who express concern that in one section, a 22 ft wide portion is required for safety. Staff and developer agree with the resident input and change their plan based on resident input. Result? Safer streets.
It is just good policy to involve residents: 'Nothing about us, without us'.
We ask that you do NOT take action. Please let the public have input.
We think that the city may have discretion in the interpretation of what the 2025 Virginia General Assembly adopted.
We think the city has some leeway, some 'wiggle room' in this process. and that it does NOT mean that the public has no input.
Amending the City Code would take away all input from the Planning Commission and site plans. Those decisions would solely be in the hands of city staff and diminish the power of the Planning Commission AND the public.
We ask that the Planning Commissioners request that the city attorney, Kelly Lackey, attend the Wednesday 9-24-25 meeting 'in person'. We request that the Planning Commission asks her how she interprets this UDO TA, Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 2660 in contrast to what is stated in the staff memo from Senior Development Administrator Marne Sherman.
What 'flexibility' do we have as a city?
Sometimes there is a self-executing statute, but most laws affecting local government have LOCAL discretion built into them.
We want to know if this is a case where there is some discretion for the locality to consider? Can staff still impose an 'administerial' act and not a 'legislative' act because 'administerial' is what a locality has to do?
We realize that even with ministerial acts, the city has to have public input. There is an incredible amount of bureaucracy involved to get city tasks accomplished. This could be an attempt to ease the bureaucracy but is this the Best way?
Bureaucracy and rules slow things down. But: That's a part of 'fair' government in which citizens have input to the decisions affecting them.
Finally and frankly, this is another step in the long-term campaign plans of BUILDERS & REALTORS in Virginia to take away local control over land use by shutting out the public entirely.