Home | Programs/Events | All About PWCA | Resource Issues | News | Contact Info Maps | Photos | Publications | Youth Education |FAQ's | Links | Membership

October 15, 2003 Letter Regarding Cherry Hill/Southbridge Rezoning Changes

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 Planning Commission Resolution states that “. . . the Zoning Ordinance allows the Director of Public Works and the Zoning Administrator to administratively approve minor changes . . .”

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