8800 Richmond Highway to get “do-over” public hearing
The entrance of 8800 Richmond Highway in Dec. 2017.
Whatever comes next for the 8800 Richmond Highway property, it’ll have to wait a little bit longer. The Fairfax County Planning Commission announced last week that a second “do-over” hearing is needed to get public input on a proposal that would allow for residential construction on the site.
The new hearing, scheduled for Oct. 24, comes after a nearly four-hour planning commission hearing on 8800 Richmond Highway on July 19. That meeting featured a number of speakers sounding off on a 43-townhouse project that developers and the property owner hope to eventually build on the site.
But the townhouse proposal technically wasn’t what the July hearing was about. That proposal will be handled in a parallel rezoning request sent to the county and now scheduled to go before the planning commission on Nov. 29. The July hearing was more narrowly focused on a potential change in the text of the county’s comprehensive plan — a broader document that guides how the county envisions various areas to be used — that would allow for potential development at the site.
The bigger problem: Because county planners are recommending not to change the comprehensive plan, no proposed text for such an amendment was presented at the July hearing.
So instead of a decision on the amendment being made at planning commission’s Sept. 13 hearing, Mount Vernon District Planning Commissioner Walter Clarke announced they’d need to take a step back.
“It has been brought to our attention because there was no planned text for the [amendment] at the [July] planning commission meeting, we need to have a new public hearing,” Clarke said. “So we get to have a do-over here.”
The “do over” is unusual — Lee District Planning Commissioner James Migliaccio said he didn’t recall it happening during his eight years on the board. But a Fairfax County spokesman said it was necessary for the public to see what such an amendment would look like — even if county planners think the amendment is a bad idea.
“Our planning staff didn’t provide revisions to the plan language in July because they are recommending that the currently adopted guidance in the plan be retained,” spokesman Brian Worthy said. “However, notwithstanding this recommendation, it was later determined that draft amendment text should be available for public examination, so the county is advertising a new Planning Commission public hearing to be held after draft text is available.”
The new text is expected to be available in early October, Worthy said.
The public remarks made during the July meeting will be transcribed and put on the county’s webpage regarding the 8800 amendment, Clarke said. Speakers from the July meeting are welcome to testify again, or have their remarks from July added to the hearing’s record, according to Clarke.
Should the planning commission vote on the amendment on Oct. 24, the Board of Supervisors would then hold their own hearing on it on Nov. 20.
Owner optimistic
Clarke and three other planning commissioners held a special meeting to walk the 8800 property in August in order to better understand what’s at stake. Situated south of the Sacramento Center and north of Dogue Creek on the west side of Route 1, the property faces many challenges, including the fact that it mostly falls in the 100-year flood plain and overlaps with environmentally protected areas. For those reasons, county planners have opposed any changing the comprehensive plan to allow for residential development.
But supporters of the project say the status quo is not acceptable, and that a townhouse community can be successfully constructed on the property while at the same time remedying environmental problems caused by years of commercial and light industrial use on the 8800 property.
Pete Sitnik, who owns the property along with his brother and sister, says he’s disappointed the public hearing needs to be held again. But he added that he’s still fully confident that the current plan being floated for the site is the best way forward. His family, which has owned the site since the 1950s when it briefly served as an amusement park, have heard offers for the land over the years, Sitnik said. But none measured up to the proposal currently being put forward by Stanley Martin Homes.
“The future for that piece of property can be something nice,” Sitnik said. “We believe that the townhomes is the right way to go.”
One factor in Sitnik’s favor is a broad coalition of support from nearby neighborhood associations for the townhouse proposal. Community organizations including the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations, Engleside Civic Association and the Clusters at Woodlawn HOA have lined up behind the project, and supporters outnumbered opponents at the July public hearing.
“The neighbors support it, the local businesses support it, the elected officials support it,” Sitnik said. “For it not to go forward would be a shame.”
Editor,
The story line in your article on proposed townhouses at 8800 Richmond Highway – that of small civic associations fighting the big county – is not the one I see unfolding on this issue. Mt. Vernon residents are NOT united on wanting this flood plain developed as luxury townhouses. Many residents were unaware of these plans until they were revealed at the public hearing in July. Since then, the number of letters to the planning commission against the townhouse development has outnumbered the letters in favor and several neighborhoods and church environmental groups are considering proposals against the townhouses.
I see the story line as residents proposing two different visions of development for this area of Richmond Highway around the EMBARK development. These visions are being acted out on a small scale but decision by the planning commission and board of supervisors will affect the whole county.
If the county planning commission allows an unprecedented waiver to this developer to build 43 townhouses in a flood plain, it will be cited by every developer who wants to build in any Fairfax County floodplain. This development does not meet the county tests of being an “exceptional use” and of offering a “net environmental improvement,” so why should others?
One vision for the area is to follow the plan set by EMBARK, which won an award for its proposals to daylight streams that have been routed underground and surround them with environmental corridors for residents to enjoy. In the newly approved (March) Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this area, this parcel is designated as open space. It is entirely within the flood plain of Dogue Creek. Nearby residents recall the creek flooding over the entire property. The plan notes that, despite the best efforts of the staff, the EMBARK area will be 38 acres short of park area and green space when it is populated.
An alternate vision for the property would favor the restoration of Dogue Creek to its original creek bed and floodplain and allow public access along its banks. The creek bed was distorted by past owners who erected a concrete dam (later built upon by beavers) that formed a pond and other efforts that diverted the creek into a C shape that is now eroding the roadbed of Richmond Highway. In conjunction with EMBARK, VDOT is widening Richmond Highway and building a bridge over Dogue Creek. VDOT will have a public hearing on its environmental assessment of this bridge plan in late fall.
Surely no townhouse development plan that would built within 50 feet of the current creek should be contemplated before this assessments and a thorough study and presentation on how to restore the creek to county standards including flood prevention downstream.
The owners, who admittedly have not been good stewards of the land, need not be suddenly rewarded by reaping a hefty sale price due to rezoning before a through presentation of options for the creek. They admit in your article they have had previous offers on the land, but none as good as this one, which is contingent on rezoning.
Organizations that oppose rezoning for townhouses include the Friends of Little Hunting Creek, Friends of Accotink Creek, The Audubon Naturalist, Society, and the Smarter Growth Coalition, which was heavily involved in EMBARK planning, with other to come.
Fifteen locals opposed to the development, some with signs, attended a site visit of the planning commission in August.
Forty-three luxury townhouses would probably make that area of Route 1 look more upscale, but is that really what the residents want? As Route 1 is widened and EMARK advances, there will be plenty of development and gentrification around the stops on new bus rapid transit system (one of which is planned for the Dogue Creek Bridge).
Now that we are on the cusp of big development, let’s not sacrifice the health of our creeks and open spaces to profits for individual landowners.
The county staff did not present a resolution at the first hearing because it felt the proposal to build townhouses was so outrageous that it did not merit discussion. The planning staff is still firmly against the allowing this type of development in floodplains and will make its presentation at the next public hearing.
Dogue Creek is a historic creek, once owned by George Washington and used for his grist mill and which enters the Potomac at Mt Vernon Estate. Since the EMBARK theme of the Woodlawn community business center that will about the property in question is History and Environment, it makes sense to protect and provide access to this historic creek.
Mary Paden
Hey folks
Get to the bottom line. This plan is based on building in a Flood Plain. A Flood Plain. Ask North and South Carolina if this is a good idea and forget about what our local real estate agents say about it given their special interests in the project under cover of their “neighborhood” citizens associations. This is a bad idea. You dont fill flood plains with dirt. You dont let people buy homes in flood plains and you dont let real estate agents sell this to unsuspecting buyers!