|
Why is Greater South Market such a threat to the Rural Crescent?
The development would consume over 266 acres of Rural Crescent
land. It would allow for a high density housing, such as condo's
to be built on Rural Crescent land. Although the developer is
attempting to use golf courses as "open area", in
March of 2002, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing golf
courses in the Rural Crescent was unanimously denied by the
Board. Golf course are not allowed in the Rural Crescent because
of ground water issues, the fact that a golf course could not
survive on a 10 acre house parcel community (exactly why Greater
South Market is such high density housing), and because there
is a saturation of golf courses in Prince William County. There
is no overwhelming reason to subvert the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan and allow such a violation of the people's trust. We demand
the Supervisors uphold the Rural Crescent and it's building
requirements. This land could have been down-zoned two years
ago by the Board , and it was not. Why? One can speculate that
Greater South Market has been in the "que" for quite
some time only the people never knew about it the exact proposal
until recently.
The last minute deferral of the Greater South Market Proposal
before the Board of Supervisors May 20th is a betrayal to every
citizen in Prince William County. However, Greater South Market
does not merely reduce itself down to pro-development or anti-development,
that is far too simplistic and everyone here recognizes this
fact. This application passing or being denied will not be based
upon its merit or lack thereof. This decision by the Board of
Supervisors will either be a vote for democracy and its true
meaning, or it's distorted contribution based, greedy,
disfigured version.
If Greater South Market passes, Developers will endeavor to
use it as precedent and open the Rural Crescent up for unlimited
development. We must stand together and make the will of the
people the force that prevails.
Proffer Information:
For the 525 non-age-restricted residential units, the 1992
LOS standards would apply; this would result in a loss of $5.8
million from the current LOS standards for this project.
" Cultural Resources - No Phase 1 Archeology Study completed
at time of rezoning
" Environmental Resources - (1) No mapped or other illustrative
information provided on proposed woodland preservation areas
provided at the time of rezoning; (2) No proffered conservation
areas included for extensive amount of non-tidal wetlands identified;
(3) Proffered commitment to 62% of site as open space includes
open space, golf course, active recreation, RPAs, 100 year flood
plain, stormwater ponds streams and water features; (4) Wooded
buffer along Route 15 is proffered to be an average of 50' but
can be as little as 30' with clearing/trimming allowed to increase
view of golf facilities; (5) erosion controls proffered for
50' of the limits of the RPA and/or 100 year floodplain with
no additional requirements included to protect environmentally
sensitive lands
" Fire and Rescue - Total amount proffered is $255,350
short of current LOS standards
" Affordable Housing - Total of $180,000 paid to Housing
Preservation and Development Fund; note that 1992 rezoning included
requirement of 5% of residential units as affordable housing
" Library - Proffered amount is $183,075 less than current
LOS standards.
" Parks and Open Space - (1) Proffered amount is $924,144
short of current level of service standards; (2) golf course
proffered to be private us, community use or daily fee; (3)
proposed on-site recreation facilities and golf course do not
meet current LOS, and there is already an oversupply of golf
courses in PWC
" Schools - The amount proffered is $3,683,925 less that
the current LOS standards.
" Transportation - (1) PWC would have to acquire ROW for
the Haymarket Bypass; (2) proffered monetary contributions in
lieu of designing and constructing the Haymarket Bypass are
about $775,000 less that the current LOS standards; (3) all
streets within the development would be private streets
Stale Zoning Information:
PWC definition of "Stale Zoning": (1) Properties
inconsistent with the Comp Plan with no or limited development
activities, delay in development plus change in Comp Plan, or
(2) Properties consistent with Comp Plan that were rezoned before
August 1998 with no approved development plans or limited development
activities.
1. South Market Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning parcels that
were included in Prince William County's identification of Residential
Stale Zonings, Category 2 (defined as vacant land, zoning inconsistent
with Comp Plan designation, zoning approved after July 1976,
projects approved with proffers but no proffers completed to
date and no valid constructions plans exist).
Parcel Information:
84 acres; Parcel GPIN 7297-18-3364; Address 16218 Thoroughfare
Road;
2002 Assessment = $781,300; 2003 Assessment = $4,061,200
76.668 acres; Parcel GPIN 7198-90-5683; Address 16031 John
Marshall Hwy;
2002 Assessment $876,000; 2003 Assessment $3,473,600
Both parcels were purchased by South Market LLC on November
27 2000. The transaction involved multiple parcels for a total
cost of $3,510,000.
The October 11 2000 letter from PWC Planning Director Rick Lawson
to PWC Executive Craig Gerhart, titled "Board Directives
on Stale Zoning Analysis" states: Replan (through planning
studies or sector plans, or at the time of the next Comprehensive
Plan update) and rezone six properties: Chesapeake Apartments,
Compton Farms, Haymarket Investments, Penny Packer Square, Ridgegate
and Riverside Station.
2. Potomac News article CHALLENGERS COMMIT TO CRESCENT published
May 31 2003 refers to stale zonings:
"Supervisor Ruth T. Griggs, R-Occoquan, who was not asked
to sign the pledge because she is not running again, said this
"stale" zoning could have been solved several years
ago when the county examined what areas could be down-zoned
in a legally defensible manner.
It's not that simple, Hill said, pointing out she started that
process.
Staff did not recommend the Greater South Market property be
targeted for downzoning, she said. The county went with its
best shot - environmentally sensitive parcels in Dumfries -
and lost a two-year court battle that in the Virginia Supreme
Court.
"It shows you that they're legally not very strong grounds
to stand on," Connaughton said.
This information draws a connection between the Triangle lawsuit
and the stale zonings identified by PWC government in 2000.
In fact, the Triangle lawsuit, generally referred to as the
Moncure/Wall and Turner case, was not connected to a stale zoning
issue but instead involved properties (located east of Route
1 between Fuller Heights Road and Quantico Creek) where development
presented serious environmental and traffic concerns.
" A review of the Prince William County Residential Stale
Zoning Study Maps for Category 1, 2, 3A and 3B Properties, dated
July 7 2000, shows no parcels designated as stale zonings east
of Route 1 and between Fuller Heights Road and Quantico Creek.
" The Moncure/Wall and Turner lawsuit is associated with
a 1998 rezoning that responded to the significant environmental
and traffic issues associated with development of these parcels.
The landowners filed a lawsuit against Prince William County
and in October 2000 the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the
downzoning. The landowners appealed this decision and in April
2002 the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court
decision. News articles covering these court decisions are included
below.
---------------------------
JUDGE UPHOLDS BOARD LIMITATION ON DEVELOPMENT
1998 VOTE ON TRIANGLE LAND 'UNFAIR BUT NOT UNLAWFUL'
By Lisa Rein, Washington Post; November 1, 2000
A Prince William Circuit Court judge this week upheld a decision
by the Board of County Supervisors to slash drastically the
number of homes that can be built on 500 acres in Triangle,
calling the action "unfair but not unlawful."
Judge Richard B. Potter ruled Monday that the board's vote
in 1998 to rezone the land in the county's southeastern corner
in an effort to limit development was in effect a "piecemeal
downzoning" that singled out the neighborhood's . . .
----------------------------
RULING COULD MEAN MORE DENSITY IN DUMFRIES
By Trina Goethals, Potomac News; March 5 2002
http://www.dumfries.com/search.asp?article=1094
Residents in the Triangle and Dumfries areas could see an increase
in residential development if developers take advantage of a
decision last week by the Virginia Supreme Court.
The court ruled a previous decision made by the Prince William
County Circuit Court regarding a 1998 case involving land owners
and the Prince William Board of County Supervisors should be
overturned, allowing for major development on 500 acres between
Thomasson Crossing and Graham Park Shores subdivisions, bordering
Quantico Marine Corps base.
Lea Turner, who owns 267 of the 500 acres, filed suit against
the Board of County Supervisors stating a zoning ordinance enacted
by the supervisors constituted "piecemeal downzoning,"
or downzoning of a small section of the county.
Turner, a Maryland resident, along with Anne Moncure Wall,
who owned 53 acres, wanted to sell the property to a developer
at a previous zoning standard of four homes per acre. A 1998
zoning of the property by the board of supervisors allowed only
one home per acre.
"We couldn't be more disappointed in this decision,"
said Supervisor Maureen S. Caddigan, R-Dumfries. "It is
devastating to the community around there. There is simply no
infrastructure to handle development like that. There are roads
there that can never be widened unless you take people's homes
out, and there is no room for additional students in the schools,
or for the additional traffic on the roads."
The ruling by the state Supreme Court will allow four homes
per acre to be constructed on the 500 acre site.
"The big difference between the Circuit Court case and
this case is that the Circuit Court went out and saw the land
and sat in traffic and made the determination that the county
was justified in the decision," said Board of County Supervisors
Chairman Sean Connaughton, R-At Large.
Connaughton lives near the site, but was not a member of board
at the time of the 1998 zoning.
"The Supreme Court does not understand the practical impact,"
Connaughton said.
One of three criteria must be met to justify a legal standard
of piecemeal downzoning, according to County Attorney Sharon
E. Pandak.
"There must be fraud, a mistake or a change in circumstance,"
Pandak, who argued the case, said.
The county said the land, which is difficult to work with in
most areas of the site because of erosion and wetlands, and
heavy traffic volume were a change of circumstances. However,
the Supreme Court did not see it that way.
"The county failed to present sufficient evidence to support
a finding of a change in circumstances regarding the impact
of increased traffic between the time the board enacted its
zoning ordinance in 1991 and the time it enacted the 1998 zoning
ordinance," according to the Supreme Court ruling.
Pandak said the court goes on evidence presented, and could
not visit the site in question.
Caddigan, who has had several town meetings with members of
the community regarding the property, said a developer currently
is drafting a proposal, however, she does not know how this
recent decision will effect those plans.
"The developer has not purchased the land yet, so nothing
is final," Caddigan said. "I have not talked with
him since December, but I hope this does not cause the plans
to change."
The current proposal includes a community of upscale homes in
the price range of $350,000 to $420,000 with a density of one
home per acre.
"I hope we can stay with the upscale homes," Caddigan
said. "The community will work with them on that. One house
per acre would sit pretty, and the current residents who live
in that area are OK with that," Caddigan said. "We
are hopeful that this developer will come in and build his 259
homes in a cluster."
Figures show that if 259 homes were built on that site, the
school system could expect an influx of approximately 170 new
students, however, Caddigan said. if the full number of homes
are developed, which now can be, that number could be multiplied
by four, something that alarms school officials.
"There already is a lot of pressure on the schools in
that area," said Ed Kelly, superintendent of Prince William
County Schools. "We don't have any place to go over there.
There is nowhere to build more schools. The elementary and middle
schools would be the biggest concern because those kids have
limited transportation options, and those schools [Dumfries
and Triangle Elementary schools and Graham Park Middle School]
have reached their limit already. We will just have to wait
and see what the developers do there."
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors plans to discuss
the issue of the developers' proposal tonight in executive session.
The ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court can not be appealed.
Staff writer Trina Goethals can be reached at (703) 368-3101,
Ext. 121.
Reprinted from the Potomac News
|
![[ Yahoo! Maps ]](http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/mp/gr/mplogo.gif){kind=small}
