City planning staff contend the development can proceed by-right and only requires staff approval; attorney representing Canal Quarter Neighborhood Association residents argues otherwise.
City planning staff reiterated on Thursday the position that the owners of Mary’s Landing have the right to build 63 houses on the property without going through a special use permit process.
“It’s a difficult thing but also a simple thing to understand,” said Chuck Johnston, director of community planning and building, at a meeting of the Canal Quarter Neighborhood Association. “These [64 lots] exist today. These property owners have rights today. They could build 64 houses through getting a building permit on the lots that are platted.”
“Those are legal lots of record, and our attorneys say we don’t have a choice [as to whether to permit them to be developed],” Johnston continued. “It’s not a decision, it’s a fact.”
But he acknowledged that those hosting Thursday’s meeting—members of the Fredericksburg Neighborhood Coalition—have a different interpretation of whether development of the lots located between Fall Hill Avenue, Charles Street, Hunter Street, and Germania Street can occur by-right—and that the matter is likely heading to the courts.
More than 100 citizens attended the meeting at the Dorothy Hart Community Center to hear from the developers of Mary’s Landing, planning department staff, and representatives of the Neighborhood Coalition.
Mary’s Landing is a proposed development of 63 single-family attached townhomes, each priced at about $600,000, developers said Thursday.
Members of the Neighborhood Coalition have retained Gifford Hampshire, an attorney with the Fairfax-based firm Blankingship and Keith, to argue that the development needs to go through a special permit process to build at the proposed density of 16 units per acre—double what is allowed by the Creative Maker district zoning that applies to the property.
The developer—and the city—state that because an 1891 plat of the property shows 64 separate recorded lots, the landowner has a right to develop on them at the proposed density, even though the lots shown in the site plan do not exactly match the lots on the historic plat.
“We’re not here to beat up on the developer …. No one is opposed to residential development. My #1 problem is the public process. We believe this constitutes a major subdivision and should have a public hearing and go through the normal public process. If it gets approved, then fine, but that is Council’s prerogative, not staff’s prerogative.”
Hampshire argues that because the site plan shows that the lot lines will be adjusted, that means new lots are being created.
“It is those new lots that will be ‘used,’ not the lots of record per the 1891 plat,” Hampshire wrote in a June 18 letter to City Attorney Kelly Lackey.
Hampshire also argues that the site plan qualifies as a “major subdivision” under City Code, not an administrative subdivision that only requires staff approval, as staff have said.
“The City cannot claim that Mary’s Landing qualifies as an ‘administrative subdivision’ that only needs staff approval since 63 newly-configured lots are being created and must therefore conform to [Unified Development Ordinance]/Zoning Ordinance Requirements,” Hampshire wrote.
He continued, “I would stress that my clients do not want to fight with the City. On the contrary, they stand ready and willing to meet with you and other City officials to reach an amicable accord on a fair and legally sound process for approving or disapproving this Project.”
“This developer needs to abide by the same rules and ordinances that other developers must follow. We therefore respectfully request that the City reject the pending site plan application and insist that the Developer seek a special permit to secure the additional density for the Project and submit a major subdivision plat to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval.”
Approval should be “Council’s prerogative, not staff’s”
Developers Lee Garrison, Mark Doherty, and engineers Chad and Dan Webb of Webb & Associates attended the meeting to talk about the project.
“We are not out-of-towners—we are local,” said Garrison.
He said the developers have listened and will continue to listen to public comment, noting that the revised general development plan submitted in April includes more open space and a commitment to preserve as many specimen trees as possible in response to public input.
But Jim Pates, a former City attorney and member of the Fredericksburg Neighborhood Coalition, said his main concern with the development is that it is not subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission or City Council.
“We’re not here to beat up on the developer,” Pates said. “No one is opposed to residential development. My #1 problem is the public process. We believe this constitutes a major subdivision and should have a public hearing and go through the normal public process. If it gets approved, then fine, but that is Council’s prerogative, not staff’s prerogative.”
Johnson pushed back on the “inference that [city staff are] trying to subvert the process.”
“We are not here to go around or subvert a process,” he said. “No one has the right to say the legal lot of record is not the legal lot of record, and I think it is disrespectful to the property rights of these owners to say these are not legal lots.”
Planning department staff this week disapproved the second Mary’s Landing site plan, “pending correction of the following items.”
Staff asked the developers to provide more detailed dimensions for the proposed open spaces, get an arborist to approve the landscaping plans, confirm who will maintain the alleys, upgrade “undersized” storm drain pipes, show a system for collecting runoff prior to discharging it onto city streets, demonstrate that runoff being discharged will not result in flooding, and look at more locations to maximize tree plantings on the site, among other requests.
The developers said Thursday that they are “digesting” the latest round of staff comments.
Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | YouTube
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit our website at the link that follows.
Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism
The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past month, our reporting was:
$8 a month supports great journalism
- First to report on a Spotsylvania School teacher arrested for bringing drugs onto campus.
- First to report on new facility fees leveled by MWHC on patient bills.
- First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project
- Provided extensive coverage of the cellphone bans that are sweeping local school districts.
- And so much more, like Clay Jones, Drew Gallagher, Hank Silverberg, and more.
For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.
Your contributions 100% support our journalists.
Help us as we continue to grow!
