Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stafford staff recommend historic overlay for Sherwood Forest Farm; supervisors ask for more information and outreach

Stafford County Board of Supervisors · September 3, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County cultural resources staff presented an Architectural Review Board recommendation to refer a historic resource overlay district for Sherwood Forest Farm to the planning commission. Supervisors asked for more research, parcel‑specific options and better owner/outreach before action.

Nancy Cotting, Stafford County’s cultural resource specialist, presented two Architectural Review Board recommendations for historic resource overlay districts and spent significant time on Sherwood Forest Farm (971 Kings Highway). Cotting said the ARB recommended protecting three tax parcels totaling roughly 541 acres and noted the property was found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1994 based on architecture and research potential.

Cotting described research on the property’s post‑Civil War history and its role in Stafford’s African American heritage: "The entire property was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1994," she said, and she noted prior study of slave dwellings and stabilization work the owner funded. Cotting said placing an overlay would not prohibit new construction but would require Architectural Review Board review and a certificate of appropriateness for exterior changes.

Supervisors raised procedural and stakeholder concerns: several asked if the county should parcel off only discrete contributing areas (cemetery, farmstead and agricultural buildings) instead of overlaying the larger development‑sized parcel; others said they wanted more time to review the file and for one‑on‑one discussions with Cotting and staff. A representative from the nearby church said the congregation had not been adequately notified about a related Clifton Chapel item and urged more outreach.

Cotting told the board staff had mailed certified notices twice (one returned for a bad ZIP code), and that the property owner called after receiving the second mail and engaged by phone. The board did not take final action; members directed staff to provide additional detail, outreach and options (boundary adjustments, buffers or partial parcel protections) before any referral or vote.