LETTER: Longtime Resident Opposes Lincoln Avenue Development
By Paul Perrot
August 6, 2012
Last Monday, I attended the Planning Commission meeting regarding an appeal on new construction at 1007 Lincoln Avenue. The appeal was continued to August 6 and a final decision is expected when the Commission reconvenes in City Council chambers for further deliberation at 7:45 P.M. this evening. We need your help. Please come to make your views known.
This is a matter of critical importance for Falls Church City. The rights of our fellow citizens who initiated the appeal have been grievously violated. Moreover, the rezoning on this property is not consistent with existing code, and the resulting increase in density has far reaching implications for increased demands on city services and the capacity of our city to pay for them. Most significant for this evening’s agenda, the development proposed for the property is not in line with CBIRT (Chesapeake Bay Interdisciplinary Review Team) regulations. It must be stopped.
CBIRT regulations allow for a maximum water runoff of 35 percent. The proposed grading changes to the property will produce a 41 percent runoff. Members of the Planning Commission who were on the City Council when this code was written stated that the maximum limit of 35 percent was intended as a ceiling to mitigate aggregate runoff from conditions caused by all properties combined throughout the entire City. The current proposal violates this premise. Even if this proposal offers some kind of solution for the additional runoff, from everything I heard, there is no sure plan to dispose of the excess runoff in accordance with CBIRT regulations. And let’s not overlook the fact that any excess runoff is simply a violation of the regulations in the first place.
If this weren’t enough, the property is currently in violation of the CBIRT requirement of 20% tree coverage.
Take a look at the site yourself. There are no trees there at all! With all the structures proposed including driveways and underground holding tanks and other shenanigans the developer might have in mind, there doesn’t appear to be any guarantee that the property will ever have sufficient growing room to attain this requirement of a 20% tree canopy.
It should concern you that the developer has subsequently ‘volunteered’ to address the matter more stringently, “at my own expense,” he proffers. And this comes after outrageous violations of the neighbors’ due process rights by all other parties involved. Do these more stringent measures really sweeten the deal? I think not. They merely underline the fact that the CBIRT regulations have not been properly followed and that the appeal should be upheld.
The City Engineer’s presentation was ill-conceived and unconvincing. According to him, we are to believe that the only thing CBIRT is supposed to protect is ‘water quality’. This is not true. As Planning Commissioner John Lawrence pointed out, ‘water quality’ is just a very small part of the regulations (“8th on the list,” he said). The City Engineer’s reading of ‘water quality’ is exceptionally limited and does not address the quality issues covered in all other aspects of CBIRT regulations, which he doesn’t even appear willing to consider anyway. He made no substantive accounting for the consequences of accumulated water runoff and how the quality of that water may be affected or further compromised in subsequent handling. Nor does he give any good reasons why the City should be the one to bear increased costs for services to address this issue, let alone the substantially higher cost implications for other services such as our schools. More to the point, the City Engineer is hardly the one to be calling the shots on matters of such magnitude, especially since he seems to mistake his interpretations for the code itself.
On the matter of the code requirement for a stay to any and all work on the property where zoning decisions are subject to appeal, the City Attorney stated that conventional interpretations of the wording ‘compliance’ in the code refer to compliance regarding orders issued by the City. This reading does not make sense here where the appeal is made by some entity other than the City. The only ‘order’ that this section of code can possibly allude to is the weight of the appeal itself. Otherwise there would be no need to admit the possibility of any ‘stay’ in the wording of this statute. The statute itself only uses the word, ‘order’, in the first instance in reference to the ruling under appeal; in the second instance in the sense of ‘restraining order’ where the stay by appeal can be undone by authority of the City Manager or by court order. Since our City Attorney wants to understand ‘compliance’ in the way he stated, one thing for sure is that this section of the code needs to be rewritten for clarity. Also, a distinction needs to be made between large commercial projects and small residential ones. What makes sense for the former should not necessarily apply to the latter. The increased density here is only possible with the hocus pocus of specious calculations designed to meet the requirement of a maximum 35% runoff.
What concerned me the most about the City Attorney’s statement is that he did not demonstrate any interest in supporting a reading in accordance with the actual language or intent of the Code. His reading was, in fact, totally opposite the interpretation of every commissioner who opined on the matter. There may be some basis in established legal precedent for the City Attorney’s position. But in this instance where such legal precedent is obviously wrong, I would expect our City Attorney not to pander to it but rather to challenge it and make it right. The City Attorney impresses me as an astute professional. I believe that his hand is being forced to maintain a position more to justify mismanagement of the whole matter than to uphold the letter of the law.
Falls Church City needs more stringent zoning requirements to protect it from developers who exploit the system. This has been an issue as long as I have lived here (since 1987). While we succeeded in reducing the Jennings townhouse development on East Jefferson from 130 or so – I don’t recall the exact number but it was ridiculously high and inappropriate – to its present size, remember that one of the developer’s ‘proffers’ was a bike path with egress to East Jefferson. Do not trust either the developer or the City on that one.
My experience is that developers will do and say anything to skirt City requirements intended to ensure the integrity of our community when the only real consideration is their own bottom line. Every time this happens, the developer engages legal counsel to intimidate or persuade the City from enforcing codes designed to protect the greater public interest. And in doing so they make vain, pandering ‘proffers’ that, like the bike path, may not even be realized. If these projects were truly transparent, fair and above board, would such legal counsel really be necessary?
Last Monday there were only a handful of citizens to speak out against what is happening on Lincoln Avenue. And now this matter is at its final hour. To be effective blocking initiatives that violate a major zoning ordinance, we need to step up and voice our views. The time is now. Since zoning matters in the City are not transparent, extraordinary vigilance of the citizens is required to make sure that the City doesn’t expand to an unsustainable size.
We have to put a stop to rezoning that leads to larger density, which is detrimental to the future of Falls Church City. Our schools simply do not have room for larger enrollments, and our city does not have adequate free space to construct additional school buildings without astronomical costs. The extraordinary growth in nearby Loudoun County has come at a huge cost of capital investment. Two high schools just recently opened and a third opens this year, not to mention new elementary and middle schools, too. And yet more building is required. At least Loudoun has available space. We have to be very careful not to grow to a size that we cannot afford to maintain. Falls Church City Schools are excellent and we need to keep them this way. The consequences of higher densities will be higher costs to run our quality schools and maintain other needed services. If we are not careful, these costs might just outrun our capacity to pay for them.
Please come to tonight’s meeting. Our fellow citizens on Lincoln Avenue need everyone’s support. We all need to work together to preserve the future of our City.
By (see byline)
August 6, 2012
Thank you for writing, Mr. Perrot. Between your article here and Gordon Thiez’s column in last Thursday’s News-Press, my worry about our City’s current management of existing codes and policies — first caused by the City Manager’s over-stepping of FCC’s traffic calming processes where we live on East Columbia St. and then increased with City staff attitudes about the Pedestrian, Etc. plan — is not abating. I will plan to be at the meeting tonight.
According to Mr. Perrot: “developers will do and say anything to skirt City requirements intended to ensure the integrity of our community when the only real consideration is their bottom line.” Finally, it’s sinking in. Too bad this kind of outrage was absent for the truly high-density projects of the last decade— The Broadway, The Byron, The Spectrum, and Pearson Square. Unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn— more are under construction and being planned. Current and former Council members who get exercised at Lincoln Ave. type development think nothing of approving more condos and apartments.
Here is the agenda for the Planning Commission tonight, 7:45 pm, council chambers: http://fallschurch-va.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=64
A link to last week’s unapproved minutes is in the agenda.
Mr. Perrot, I thank you for your opinion piece. I could only hope that by limiting residential development and density we will avoid large school infrastructure investments. School representatives have been banging the drum to let us know we need to plan for a new high school. As I remember, this was based on enrollment projections without any special attention to changes (increases or decreases) in density rules. I would welcome someone with more details about the school projections to chime in.
I’m not sure how to add to my previous comment, but I also wanted to say that I very much appreciate Paul’s letter regarding the development on Lincoln Avenue. The City of Falls Church is a desirable place to live for a number of reasons. Development is going to happen, density will increase, and storm water problems will need to be addressed. However, the process should not create so much drama, especially in a residential neighborhood.
The city needs to be more transparent about the actions taken by zoning and building staff and provide the rationale behind those actions when questioned. Residents need to know what to expect in terms of redevelopment in our neighborhoods. The city code should tell us that, or be revised if it is unclear.
It is my opinion that City staff should follow the code as written…that is there job. They work for the residents of this City & should follow the code written to protect property owners. If the code is outdated, or needs to be re-worked to plan for more density in the future, this should be changed by our elected City Council members. The City Council can then properly plan for City services/schools that will be needed for the increased density. I am in no way anti-development & in fact I would love for our City to be more like Clarendon, Shirlington, or Old Town Alex. for many reasons, however, the elected City council, NOT the City staff should be making these decisions! The City staff needs to follow the code as written! Property/zoning code needs to be changed in a transparent & proper way so we set our City up for the best possible future.
Just looking at the slope of the land tells you there is a problem with runoff and one should not need a CBIRT to tell developers that they must remedity the problem before they build. And just look at how thin the foundation walls are, is that code? Where there is big money to be made people will find a way to make….and then run….
I agree with Paul. I am pleased that he prevailed Monday evening, when I was unable to attend because I teach an introductory archery class at Ft. Belvoir every Monday evening.
Russ Hatchl
318 Van Buren Street
(703) 519-3553
The houses already built by this developer are absolutely lovely, with front porches and rear garages. They replaced a house that was completely falling apart – an eyesore that no doubt was less energy efficient/environmentally friendly than what has replaced it. This is dense, attractive, building where it should be – walking distance to metro. This is what we should want to encourage in the City.
I have to say I am amazed the builder tried to go for 40% on the new lots given what he’s been through. I guess maybe he thought that a permit, once issued, means something. The City will drive away builders and cost property owners with this sort of behavior – this builder is being financially punished for the City’s internal problems and/or it’s willingness to give in to a minority. They should do a thorough review and deny permits BEFORE someone spends tens of thousands. The foundations are in! Just crazy. I will NEVER expand my house or build anything in the City. Not every one here is so rich they can risk such a setback.
The appeals of CBIRT and zoning decisions have absolutely nothing with the aesthetics of the houses contructed or replaced. The issue here is that the City is not following the plain language of the code regarding substandard lot development which require them to be combined (as they already were when the previous house existed). Furthermore, the City must stay construction when an appeal is filed and the builder should recognize the recklessness of continuing to build when a permit might be overturned.
The right of appeal is recognized in the Code. And the Code clearly states that permits are rendered null and void when appeals are upheld. Therefore, the validity of the permit cannot begin until the time period for appeals has expired. It’s that simple. The Code also imposes a sizable daily fine on any party that violates any terms of the Code by continuing work on a property under appeal unless authorized by City authorities to correct a critical endangerment. No such authorization was ever issued.
I believe every possible means to have the courts validate this interpretation as to what is meant by the wording in the code has been attempted and failed. I do believe talk of school crowding and environmental/runoff concerns is a red herring. Appearance shouldn’t be an issue, but it is. There are literally hoards of children living in the Pearson Square, and the foreign service basically owns the Oakwood now and is packing it with kids with overflow into Pearson Square (they have some units on permanent lease there for foreign service families). Surely this has had far greater impact on the school population.
This particular neighborhood has a lot of substandard lots, but it is atypical for the City. I’d like to know the max number of new homes this could actually create based on actual potential future substandard lots (ie, teardown condition homes on grandfathered double lots). I suspect the numbers are not as “alarming” as this is made to seem.
I believe there was a move afoot a while back to change the zoning encourage front porches, rear rather than front garages, and less coverage on these lots (e.g, homes not so deep). That would seem to me a better use of citizen energy as the combining them will NEVER happen and is fundamentally UNFAIR. Think of this example – a citizen (who has no intention of ever tearing down thee home) buys a house on two lots in 2005, and pays more than I otherwise would because of that fact – maybe $750,000 for a home otherwise worth $650,000. The lots are combined in 2013, and suddenly said homeowner is out $100,000 of equity. I have to believe those who have been silent on this issue would rise up before they would allow that to happen, and I say this as a resident who owns a house on a single lot.
Many people do not understand and/or are not engaged on this issue and believe this is about people getting special exceptions to create new substandard lots. It is not. It is about people who bought TWO lots (albeit narrow lots that were created before the current zoning code and would not be allowed to be created today) suddenly having them legally turn into ONE lot.