October 15, 2003
Supervisor Ruth Griggs
Prince William County Board of Supervisors
13083 Chinn Park Drive
Prince William, VA 22192
Dear Supervisor Griggs,
Thanks for forwarding a copy of the information you received in response to
our September 28 2003 request for information on Prince William County’s
approval of changes to the Cherry Hill/Southbridge rezoning through an administrative
review process. Mr. Griffin, Director of Planning, had previously provided me
with a similar set of information. After reviewing this information, we have
several questions:
-
Online copies of Planning Commission Briefs shows that the Planning Commission
voted to approve changes to the Master Zoning Plan for Rezonings #PLN2000-00077
and #PLN2000-00078 and Special Use Permit #PLN2000-00079 at their July 16,
2003, meeting at 12:41 a.m. The Planning Commission Resolution approving these
changes states that “such requests for variations shall be reviewed
by the Planning Commission prior to acceptance by the Zoning Administrator
and Director of Public Works.”
The Planning Commission had originally scheduled a Work Session to review
this information on July 2, 2003. I had planned to attend this Work Session,
and contacted the Planning Department about 4:00 p.m. that afternoon to confirm
the Work Session time. At that time, Planning staff informed me that this
Work Session had been cancelled and would be rescheduled for a later date.
The joint memo, signed by Prince William County’s Zoning Administrator
and Public Works Director, stating that “The Department of Public Works
and the Office of Planning have concluded that the proposed variations from
the Master Zoning Plan [are] in keeping with the spirit and concept of the
approved rezoning and therefore are allowable variations in the planned district
pursuant to section 32-280.09 of the Zoning Ordinance . . . “ is dated
July 9 2003. The Planning Commission should have reviewed the proposed changes
sometime between July 2 2003 and July 9 2003, and certainly before their July
16 2003 vote. When and where did this review take place? How was information
on this Planning Commission Work Session made available to the public?
The June 18 2003 memo from the Transportation Planning Branch Chief states: “. . . we find that while the proposal is indeed different from that
proposed by the original Master Zoning Plan (MZP) for Southbridge, we believe
the proposal is generally in keeping with the intent of the MZP from a transportation
standpoint.”
The July 9 2003 memo from the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director
states that “The Department of Public Works and the Office of Planning
have concluded that the proposed variations from the Master Zoning Plan [are]
in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved rezoning and therefore
are allowable variations . . .”
It is my understanding that written proffers submitted as a part of development
applications are approved as written. Did the applicant submit a proffer
interpretation as part of their request for changes to the original MZP through
an administrative review process? If so, where is this document? If not, what
process was used to determine the “intent” of the MZP and the
requested changes?
- The July 9 2003 memo from the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director
states that “The KSI commitments to . . . accelerate the construction
of Potomac Parkway to the VRE station exceed the proffered conditions.”
This same memo also states “All commitments existing in the proffers
in connection with providing construction and/or other access to the VRE site
will be met based on the timing of the construction of VRE site.” What
does this mean?
- The July 9 2003 memo from the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director
states that “. . . an additional full 4-lane divided section of Harbor
Station Parkway east with a connection to existing Old Cherry Hill Road, as
depicted on the attached Exhibit A, will be constructed as a part of the first
phase of residential development . . .” Although Exhibit A is not attached
to either your or my copy of the memo, this reference conveys plans to connect
a significant road to Old Cherry Hill Road. At the time of the original rezoning,
the current Cherry Hill residents were guaranteed that Old Cherry Hill Road
would not be used as a point of egress for the proposed development. Why
were area residents denied the opportunity to comment on these revisions?
- The June 18 memo from the Transportation Planning Branch Chief states “These acceptable levels-of-service are being obtained by reducing the
intensity of the uses proposed by Southbridge . . .” The only information
provided on reductions to the intensity of the uses is found on the tables
associated with a new Traffic Impact Study.
Table 1B is titled 1999 Traffic Impact Study Proposed Land Uses. Table 1A
is titled Proposed Land Uses but includes no date. My working assumption
is that this table shows the proposed land uses associated with the developers
request for changes to the rezoning.
The July 9 2003 memo from the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director
states that “. . . VMS/Anden Southbridge Venture agreed to a substantial
reduction in the total number of dwelling units permitted immediately prior
to the final public hearing before the Board of Supervisors of Prince William
County. The reduction in density required a revision of the TIA which has
been reviewed and approved . . .” Why is the 1999 and not the
final TIA being used as a reference for purposes of analyzing this new proposal?
Table 1C is titled Trip Generation Comparison. No dates for either the
Proffered Trip Generation or Proposed Trip Generation are given. Does
this table use the 1999 statistics, as in #5 above, or the final TIA statistics?
- Table 1A shows decreases to the total amount of office
space. During the rezoning, the office space included in the development application
was a significant factor. Government officials specifically highlighted the
need for additional office space along the Route 1 corridor and cited this
as one of the primary reasons supporting approval of the Southbridge proposal.
Moreover, construction of office space is no longer included in the early
phases of this development project. How does this comply with the ‘intent’ of the original rezonings and special use permit?
- The significant changes to the land bays, necessitated by significant
changes to the road network, proffered densities and commercial areas, result
in significant changes to the conservation areas and tree protections proffered
as part of the original rezoning. A Modified Preservation Exhibit is listed,
but not included, as an attachment. No comparison matrix, information on the
original proffered conservation areas or information on the criteria used
to determine differences is included or referenced. The July 9 2003 memo from
the Zoning Administrator and Public Works Director states that “All
of the environmental and open space commitments made as a part of the rezoning
will be maintained.” What information and process was used to
determine that these commitments would be maintained? How is this being tracked?
What changes to the conservation and tree save areas have been approved?
Information posted on the Prince William County web site defines the criteria
for Administrative Review requests as:
Requests for Administrative Review (AR) must be submitted in writing to
the Planning Office. Administrative Review Plans may be submitted following
approval of such a request by the Planning Office, when the proposed improvements
are to a previously approved unclosed plan and/or constitute minor development
such as temporary activities, parking lot alterations, landscaping changes,
storage tank replacement, etc. which doesn't necessitate the formal submission
of a full site plan.
Administrative reviews do not include redesign of infrastructure that requires
the certification of computations by registered professionals; significant reviews
to the internal or external traffic patterns; changes to the number of buildings,
units and/or lots; or increases to the amount of impervious area. In general,
administrative reviews take approximately one month to review and are valid
for one year. The following forms are required when submitting a request for
administrative review: Development Control Form; Unit Price List (if applicable).
Although no copy of the Development Control Form was included in the information
packet, the Southbridge rezonings and special use permit were complicated documents
and this form does not appear to accommodate the needs of this particular request.
Some of the information requested on this form does not appear to be included
in the text descriptions.
This administrative review request includes substantive changes to infrastructure
that required a new Transportation Impact Analysis to be completed. Additionally,
the request includes changes to specific proffered conditions, including several
that generated significant community opposition at the time of the original
rezoning. These changes to the MZP appear to be significant and clearly do not
neatly match the definition of “minor.” Historically, when questions
on the interpretation of planning and other process arise, the County Attorney’s
office has provided a legal opinion defining the scope and legal use of the
authorities in question. Has the County Attorney’s office provided
a legal opinion regarding Prince William County government’s authority
to approve these changes through an administrative review process that excludes
public input?
The large high-density residential developments already under construction
at Port Potomac, the Kramer land and the Turner land add significant numbers
of vehicles and several additional traffic lights to Route 1 in the area between
the Ferlazzo Building and Town of Dumfries. The Southbridge development alone
would add more than 80,000 vehicles to this area of Route 1. Considering the
current funding shortages for roads, it appears that traffic congestion is likely
to double in this area, already gridlocked by current traffic volumes. What
efforts are being made to address this problem, through Prince William County’s
Route 1 revitalization or other projects?
Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Kim Hosen
Executive Director
|
