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: back to top

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: back to top

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: back to top
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 back to top

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 back to top

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

News Archives