Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board initiates mobility and land-use plan changes for several bypasses but rejects one proposed down‑plan and narrowly approves removal of a Heathcote route
Summary
The Board of County Supervisors authorized initiation of amendments to the county’s comprehensive plan removing references to several long‑planned bypasses and other mobility features, approved the removal of Heathcote Boulevard from the plan by a 3–2 vote, and declined to change the land‑use designation for 16000 John Marshall Highway.
The Board of County Supervisors moved on Tuesday to initiate several comprehensive plan updates affecting long-range land use and mobility language across parts of the county. The initiative included removing references to multiple planned bypass roadways from the mobility chapter and reclassifying certain parcels’ long-range land use. Staff framed the package as a directive-driven housekeeping and planning exercise that would let the county study whether older planned facilities remain appropriate.
Key decisions at the meeting - The board authorized staff to initiate amendments to the mobility chapter to remove references to the Manassas Battlefield Bypass, the Route 28 bypass, and related entries, along with several land-use designation changes for specific parcels. That motion excluded two items that required separate consideration: (a) removing Heathcote Boulevard from the plan, and (b) a proposed land‑use change for 16000 John Marshall Highway in Haymarket. - The board then addressed Heathcote Boulevard (the section from James Madison Highway/US 15 to Antioch Road). After additional discussion, the supervisors voted 3–2 to remove the route from the plan. Two supervisors — Supervisor Bodie and Supervisor Franklin — voted against that removal. - A separately proposed change to down‑plan 16000 John Marshall Highway (Haymarket) from industrial to parks/open space was discussed at length. After public comment and applicant presentations, the board voted on a motion to initiate a change; that motion failed 1–6 (the board did not initiate the change).
Why this matters: The mobility amendments reflect a broader re‑examination of decades‑old plan references to bypasses and other high‑capacity road projects that staff and the board said may no longer be appropriate as circumstances have changed. Removing a planned road from the mobility chapter does not itself construct or remove any roadway, but it can alter future right‑of‑way and funding priorities.
Process and next steps: Staff said the amendments will be processed in phases — a targeted Phase 1 for specific parcels and a Phase 2 more comprehensive reassessment of the Data Center Overlay and mobility references, where applicable. The board asked planning and transportation staff to coordinate additional stakeholder and agency consultation. Staff will return with draft language and public hearings as required.
Speakers quoted or referenced: Mark McCaskill (Planning/Transportation briefing), Reza Ramyar (planning), Eric Griffiths (case planner) and several supervisors during debate.
Ending: The board advanced a package of planning studies and some specific deletions from the comp plan, while declining to move forward on at least one requested land‑use down‑plan.
