Stafford supervisors defer decision on Sherwood Forest historic overlay after owner, residents clash

STAFFORD COUNTY, Va. — The Stafford County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 1 deferred action on a staff‑initiated proposal to add Sherwood Forest Farm to the county's Historic Resource Overlay District after a night of public testimony and split views among supervisors.

Proponents, including Anita Dodd, chair of the Stafford County Historical Commission, described Sherwood Forest as an early‑19th‑century plantation with surviving domestic structures, rare glazed silos and a family cemetery. Dodd said Sherwood Forest "was built circa 1810 this early nineteenth century" and urged the board to protect its archaeological and cultural resources.

Property representatives and a contract purchaser argued the overlay could conflict with a pending rezoning. Michael Slavatinec, representing the property owner, told the board: "I do not support the overlay district being added to the property," while adding his client is "willing to work with the county to maintain and preserve the historical features of the property." Planning staff had earlier described the parcels as eligible and said the Architectural Review Board referred the site to the board in June 2023.

Nancy Cotting, the county's cultural resource specialist in Planning & Zoning, told supervisors the overlay request covers "548.986 acres in the George Washington Election District" and explained that an overlay does not change underlying A‑1 zoning but does require design review and a certificate of appropriateness for exterior changes. Cotting acknowledged outreach problems and apologized for not reaching the owner directly before the agenda publication.

Board members debated the timing and scope. Several supervisors supported acting quickly to provide an "insurance policy" against future development that could harm historic resources; others said the owner should be meaningfully engaged before the county imposes an overlay. Chairman Diggs said he "kinda feel[s] blindsided" by the timing and emphasized the need to balance preservation with property rights.

After protracted debate and substitute motions about timing, the board voted 4‑3 to defer R25‑214 and asked staff to continue outreach and return with a recommendation at a later, board‑specified date (the board set a return date of Jan. 20). The vote leaves the overlay initiation pending; staff and the applicant may still negotiate preservation or adaptive‑reuse approaches in the interim.

What's next: The board directed staff to consult the owner of record and the Architectural Review Board and to bring refined options back for board consideration. Because the overlay can be rescinded later, staff and several supervisors described the deferral as an opportunity to seek cooperative solutions such as adaptive reuse, but no final preservation or funding commitments were made at the meeting.