The following is an op/ed written by Terry Maynard, Reston 20/20, and published in today's Reston Connection:
Stop “One Size Fits All” Zoning Proposal
In the next few months, the County Board of Supervisors plans
to approve a “one size fits all” zoning ordinance amendment that would guide
redevelopment throughout the urbanizing areas of the County for decades. It wouldn’t be too bad if the one size were a
“medium” or “large,” but the Board—increasingly desperate for new tax revenues
from more development—has chosen to go for XXL.
Specifically, the County’s draft zoning ordinance amendment proposes
that all the county’s 20 transit
station areas (TSAs), community redevelopment districts (CRDs), and commercial
business centers (CBCs) be allowed a floor-area ratio (FAR) of up to 5.0.
So what does FAR 5.0 really mean? Literally, it means that a developer can
build structures with floor space that is five times greater than the area of
the parcel on which they sit. In the
real world, it means that developers can build up these Fairfax County areas to
a density that is greater than any that exists anywhere in northern Virginia. Even the massively developed Rosslyn Metro
core (see photo below) only has a density of FAR 3.6 according to Arlington
County (including twin towers above the Rosslyn station at FAR 10.0), about
two-thirds of what Fairfax County is proposing to make available in communities
and neighborhoods areas across the County.
In general, the FAR 5.0 density zoning ordinance may be
appropriate for some locations, such as a part of one of Reston’s transit
station areas. Reston’s new master plan
calls for allowing FAR 4.0 (plus a bonus of FAR 0.5) for the small area
immediately north of Reston’s Town Center Metro station. But the draft amendment makes no distinction
in allowable density at the station and at the ½-mile perimeter of the station
area where it should taper substantially.
Moreover, Reston’s other two station areas and virtually every
other Metro station area in the County, such as the West Falls Church and Van
Dorn station areas, are neither planned for nor could they reasonably
accommodate density anywhere approaching FAR 5.0. Unlike Reston’s Town Center (and Tysons), these
places have no planned aspirations to become regional economic centers with
huge population and employment increases—many tens of thousands—envisioned.
Even worse is the notion of redeveloping the County’s CBCs
and CRDs at a density of up to FAR 5.0. The
redevelopment of these areas is almost exclusively meant to revitalize their
community economic viability, not to have broader County or regional
impact. Most importantly, these areas
have no walking access to Metrorail which is the key ingredient in allowing high
density in TSAs. At best, they will have
bus service to link them with Metro, and they certainly can’t absorb the tens
of thousands of additional autos on their local streets without massive and
costly improvements.
Worse yet, the residents of all these areas will probably
have to pay a share of the cost for the new transportation improvements this
intense development will create through new local taxes, so called “transportation
tax service districts.” These needs will
include a new internal “grid of streets,” improvements to existing roads, and
better bus transit.
Reston is facing this situation now as
the
County is proposing an added local real estate tax of $.025 to $.035 per $100
valuation.
One version extends the
tax district to
all of Reston
although only about one-quarter of Reston along the Dulles Corridor is in the
TSAs where the road work and development would occur.
Elsewhere, in southern Fairfax County, for
example, a comparable proposal could be a Richmond Highway-long tax district
from Alexandria to Ft. Belvoir for roads built or improved only in the six
small CRD areas designated for redevelopment along that route.
There is no reason the County wouldn’t apply
this warped you-pay-for-it reasoning everywhere in these redevelopment zones.
Tysons already has such a transportation tax district. The tax rate there started at $.04 per $100
valuation in 2013, but increased to $.05 per $100 valuation the following
year. No doubt Tysons’ rate will
continue to rise (in addition to the increased taxes from higher valuations on
property there) and the proposed Reston “teaser rate” will almost certainly increase
quickly soon after the Board of Supervisors approves it.
The insult to local communities is that the County’s
explicit intent is to increase
traffic congestion in these redeveloped areas.
Yes, the County’s plan for all this transportation tax spending is to increase congestion explicitly to
discourage people from driving in, out, or through these areas. The goal for these “urbanizing” areas is to
increase driving delays at each intersection by up to 50 seconds from current
County standards under its new “urban guidelines.” Four traffic lights will mean more than three
minutes of added delay, even for
people just passing through these areas, during the rush period whether on
Reston Parkway or Richmond Highway.
Adding injury to insult, all these funds would be used to
subsidize the profits of the local corporate developers who need the new and
improved transportation capabilities to make ever larger profits on their new
development. Residents would not receive
one dollar in financial or any other benefit from these new taxes.
By our calculation,
the
developers in Reston’s TSAs will likely make more than $50 billion in profits
in 2016 dollars over the 40 year plan timeframe and yet Reston residents are
being asked to contribute about one-seventh of the $2.6 billion needed for
roadway improvements using County costing assumptions.
That
translates into more than $8,800 per household over 40 years with moderate
inflation.
Alternatively, the developers
could pay for all these roadway improvements from their $50 billion in profits
and still—by our calculation—their return on investment for their $34 billion
in new development would be 20 percent.
We would anticipate comparable results elsewhere in the County.
The County’s response to the above analysis is that the
zoning ordinance amendment proposes to limit the allowable zoning density to
the level allowed in the district’s plan and “other recommendations in the
adopted comprehensive plan, in furtherance of the purpose and intent of this
district.”
What could be wrong with that?
First, “other recommendations” is a good sized hole through
which to drive higher development density; it has been done routinely with less
of a legal loophole.
Second, some of the area plans affected by this zoning
proposal do not have a FAR density limit at all. They are “form based” plans that describe
what the redeveloped area should look like.
The only out from a FAR 5.0 zoning is the “other recommendations”
phraseology, which means little constraint at all.
Third, Virginia’s “Dillon Rule” law prohibits any reduction
in zoning authority once given; that density becomes a “by right” authority of
the landowners. So an overly ambitious zoning
decision mistake once made cannot be undone.
The opportunity is all for the developers; the risk is all for the
residents.
Most importantly, with the County’s new “
Fairfax Forward”
Comprehensive Plan amendment process—which may be better called “Fast
Forward”—the barriers to increasing an area or project plan’s density are
virtually non-existent.
The state-mandated
Comprehensive Plan, which covers all areas of the County in some depth, provides
only a vision and guide to each area’s development that, unlike the zoning
ordinance, is a policy document and not legally binding.
The County Board’s goal in the Fairfax Forward process is to
expedite the amendment of existing local plans with high-density plan amendment
proposals, which means limiting and controlling community input. There will be no more time consuming task
forces, charrettes, workshops, endless public meetings, and other such community
input mechanisms that the County has used previously in its Area Plan Reviews
to re-vamp community-wide plans. And the
approval of project-specific plan amendments will be even more tightly
controlled. Still, the Fairfax Forward
process documentation reads like a civics lesson in public participation,
including an extensive “Public Participation Toolkit” no less, but public
participation is schedule-driven, mechanistic, and generally ignored.
Once the plan amendment has been approved, the ensuing legally
binding high-density zoning approval by the same actors will soon follow. Suddenly a TSA, CBC, or CRD area or project originally
planned at FAR 3.0 through the old process becomes planned at FAR 5.0 even if
no mass transit is anywhere around, its related zoning amendment application
approved, and construction is underway.
We strongly urge all of the County’s citizens associations,
homeowners associations, neighborhood civic groups, and any local entities that
might remotely be affected by this proposed zoning ordinance amendment to
communicate with their supervisor their disapproval of this one-size-fits-all
approach to zoning. It will only
increase local congestion, environmental damage, and taxes while disrupting
viable neighborhoods and communities, and provide billions in County tax welfare
to already highly profitable development corporations.
And please take the time to testify at the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings on this zoning proposal, now
scheduled for 8:15PM, May 25, and 4PM, June 21, respectively at the County
government center.
Terry
Maynard, Co-Chairman
Reston 20/20
Committee
