As we pass through the pre-election doldrums of the Fairfax
County Board of Supervisors, we should all understand that both the current and
the prospective County Board are in the process of reducing our involvement in
critical land use decisions from community planning to project approval
consideration. We don’t yet know if Democratic
Board candidate Walter Alcorn, almost certainly Hunter Mill District’s next
supervisor, will be swept up in this drive despite his campaign commitment to
involve the community. (His website promises to “Engage
the Community to Plan and Approve Projects that Make Sense.”)
This drive to accelerate county land use decisions in part
by reducing public involvement began with Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon
Bulova. The Board’s frenzy for rapid,
unfettered urban development goes back to at least 2012. In a report on a February 2012 Board retreat,
the Washington
Post noted,
“County
officials outlined the need to rewrite the rules that govern land-use decisions,
an effort backed by Bulova. She said that the current process, which allows for
intense deliberation and wide public involvement, was better suited to the days
when much of the county was farmland.
Today,
Bulova said, Fairfax is a more urban and densely populated suburb and requires
a more flexible approach that encourages redevelopment, particularly in areas
targeted for intense growth, but preserves public engagement.”
“Preserves public engagement” is what one calls lip service
that meets the legally required minimum public involvement in land use
decisions.
With that encouragement, the Board proceeded “to rewrite the
rules that govern land-use decisions.”
So far, the county has made the following changes:
Fairfax Forward. This Board planning initiative began shortly
after the Board’s retreat. The
initiative aimed to correct what was viewed as a too rigid parcel-specific
development nominations process that only marginally involved the
community.
Yet, as the
Annandale blog reported, “A staff report on Fairfax Forward issued in
February (2013) ‘was disturbingly silent on several critical avenues of citizen
and community involvement in reviewing land use proposals,’ states (the
Providence District Council) PDC’s
comments. “Without amended language to ensure full and meaningful community
review, PDC fears that Fairfax Forward could be construed in a way that
reduces, rather than expands, community involvement in charting Fairfax’s
future.” In 2016, the county
staff acknowledged, “(o)utstanding questions about community participation
in (the) process,” but claimed the new system provided a “(c)learer process for
citizen participation.” No changes to
improve opportunities for community involvement were added.
- There is no
requirement that the county notify the community or even adjoining property owners about proposed zoning changes, only
the district supervisor.
- There is no Planning
Commission review, much less a public hearing, on the proposed changes, only a
staff review.
- In the Reston Planned
Residential Community (PRC), the Board of Supervisors may approve, without a public hearing,
proposed development changes, including dropping recreation uses to the minimum
legally required, eliminating “ineffective or obsolete” technological or service
proffers (Why would a developer proffer “ineffective or obsolete” technology or
services—and why would the county accept them?), and changing architectural
design.
All these changes are not supposed to “materially affect”
the proposed development, but, of course, there is no definition of “materially
affect?”
In short, the community is cut out of any opportunity for
contribution to—even of knowledge of-- potentially important changes in a
standing zoning decision concerning the development of a Reston property. Anything done without full public scrutiny is
incredibly dangerous.
The
2016 Gartner Report. To bolster
its Fairfax Forward initiative, the Board engaged yet another consultant in
2015, Gartner Group, to conduct “an independent review of current procedures
and processes, effectiveness and efficiencies to identify opportunities for
improvement which can further customer service and improve operational
execution.” The “customers” are “land
use development customers, from home owners to large-scale developers.” There is little room for residents or
communities, who comprise more than one million people and hundreds of
thousands of homeowners, in the considerations of this report.
Gartner’s final report is all about achieving Goal #3 of the
county’s
2015 strategic economic development plan:
“Improve the speed, consistency,
and predictability of the Development Review Process.” Nothing in the report considers the impact of
the plans—whether community or specific development plans--on the communities
in which the development is to occur. Moreover,
the proposed processes pay only lip service to public participation, limiting them
to state-mandated requirements and the minimal limits of political
propriety.
zMOD Zoning Ordinance
Re-write. And then came “zMod,” the county’s ongoing
process to re-write the county’s zoning ordinances. The major assignment
Clarion Group is tackling is a complete re-write of the county’s zoning
ordinance, including streamlining processes, without making substantive changes in the ordinance. Clarion presented its
first draft of the substance of the proposed re-write on July 1, 2019. There are, in fact, substantive changes laid
out in the draft’s summary covering accessory uses, electrical vehicle
charging, and much more. (We strongly
encourage you to read at least the summary of this draft report where the key
changes are outlined.) On the other
hand, there is no discussion of the process by which one legislates changes
to that ordinance, including the role of public input.
Among the changes permitted in PRCs, including Reston, the
zMOD draft newly permits new “live-work development” and “stacked townhouse”
uses and excludes “community swim,
tennis, and other recreational uses.” These beg questions regarding what the
DRB will think of stacked townhouses and the future of that county regional
recreation center that is supposed to be built in Reston. Also, the proposal to not allow recreational
facilities puts Reston’s two golf courses
in jeopardy. Certainly there will be
much more to come, and we doubt that much of it will be to Reston’s advantage
or promote its residents’ involvement.
It is vital that all Reston residents understand the
proposed PRC zoning ordinance changes and their implications for our
community. There is much to be concerned
about. More broadly, we need to
understand what changes, if any, are on the docket for the process for
developing, vetting, and approving PRC zoning changes. It was only because of a huge community
effort involving literally hundreds, even thousands, of Restonians that we were
able to postpone indefinitely consideration of the recent Reston PRC zoning
ordinance amendment that would have allowed unconscionable increases in our
population.
One encouraging sign is that activists from all over the
county are now organizing. Citizens from
ALL Fairfax County districts are becoming increasingly alarmed at the county’s
rush to approve development everywhere with reduced citizen review. The 2016 Gartner report has been read and
raises huge concerns. It seems to be THE
blueprint designed for and by developers at the expense of true public input.
Any county effort to reduce community involvement in the
zoning amendment process will only make it that much more difficult for us to
stop truly bad county decisions that would undermine the goals and principles
of our master planned community.
