Letter sent on behalf of the Fredericksburg Neighborhood Coalition asks city staff to determine that the proposed development requires a special use permit.
By Adele Uphaus
MANAGING EDITOR AND CORRESPONDENT
A lawyer representing a group of Fredericksburg residents has asked the city’s zoning administrator to declare that the proposed Mary’s Landing development cannot be approved administratively and requires a special use permit.
Attorney Giff Hampshire with the Fairfax-based firm Blankingship and Keith filed the request on Tuesday with Kelly Machen, zoning administrator, on behalf of members of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition.
“The purpose of this letter is to request you to issue a Zoning Determination [stating that] approval of that site plan application … would violate the City’s Zoning Ordinance because: (1) the re-subdivision of lots it proposes cannot be approved administratively and (2) the proposed site plan would violate the density limitations of the Creative Maker District,” the letter states.
Subscribed
The developers of Mary’s Landing want to build 63 townhomes on two largely vacant parking lots bordered by Fall Hill Avenue and Germania, Hunter, and Charles streets in the Canal Quarter neighborhood. Mary’s Landing LLC submitted the first set of plans to the city in January and most recently submitted a third revision, which city planning staff disapproved as of September 18 “pending the correction” of several items.
Members of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition and others contend that the project cannot be approved by city staff largely because the proposed density of 16 units per acre is not permitted by current zoning. Construction in excess of allowable density normally requires a special use permit, which necessitates public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
But the position of the developers and city staff has been that because a plat of the property drawn up in 1891 shows 64 separate recorded lots, the landowner has a right to develop on them at the proposed density of 16 units per acre, even though the lots shown in the site plan do not exactly match the lots on the historic plat.
In his letter, Hampshire asks Machen to determine that the City would be acting in violation of its zoning ordinance by approving density in excess of the eight units per acre permitted in the Creative Maker District.
City Code contains a provision stating that “vacant nonconforming lots may be used” in exception to the zoning ordinance, but Hampshire contends that the lots where Mary’s Landing is to be located are not vacant.
“The lots have structures and a parking lot on them that have long been used as parking for the 2300 Fall Hill Avenue property—formerly Mary Washington Hospital—and now for the businesses at that address,” his letter states.
Hampshire also asks Machen to determine that the Mary’s Landing plan constitutes a “major subdivision,” not an “administrative subdivision” that only requires staff approval, “because it would create more than 50 lots that are new and different from those lots that appear on the 1891 plat.”
City Code defines an administrative subdivision as “involving no more than nine lots and shifts in lot lines or other boundary changes where no new lots are created” and a major subdivision as “a subdivision of land involving more than 50 lots.”
Hampshire wrote in the letter that the Mary’s Landing proposed re-subdivision creates lots that are “new and different from those that preexisted the re-subdivision through alteration of boundary lines,” and therefore does not meet the definition of an administrative subdivision.
Concerns with Third Site Plan, Exception Request
The Fredericksburg Neighborhood Coalition sent its own letter earlier this month to Mike Craig, director of the Planning and Community Development department, asking staff to reject both the third iteration of the plans as well as a request from the Mary’s Landing developers for an exception to the city’s subdivision ordinance.
The developers are asking to reduce the minimum size of some of the lots in order to build a private alley to access the townhomes. As quoted in the Coalition’s letter to staff, the developers contend that an alley through the rear yards of some of the lots is necessary to avoid “unnecessary jogs and angles which would make access for City emergency vehicles and the residents undesirable.”
“According to the Developer, this situation qualifies for an exception to the City’s ordinance [which can be requested when there exists] ‘unusual situations or when strict adherence to the general regulations would result in substantial injustice or hardship,’” the Coalition’s letter states. “The fact of the matter is that the Developer wants to use the rear yards of all 63 townhouses as alleys because it is the only way it can squeeze 63 townhouses onto a site that is not big enough to provide rear alleys and still meet City requirements for minimum lot sizes.”
The Coalition also expressed concern with how stormwater will be managed according to the Mary’s Landing development plan and with the proposed landscaping plan, which calls for the removal of all but two of 11 mature specimen trees on the site.
The developers, in their September 9 response to the second round of comments from city staff, stated that a certified arborist “reviewed our construction plan and evaluated the existing trees onsite and has determined that all trees with the exception of [two] should be removed.”
The remaining two might also need to be removed if there is not “adequate root structure for the tree to survive” after the existing parking lot has been removed, the developers said.
The Coalition’s letter states that, “Once again, this is a dilemma of the Developer’s own making.”
“If the number of lots were reduced from 63 to a more reasonable number, there would be plenty of room for both the existing trees and the new townhouse units,” the letter states.
A goal of the city’s landscaping ordinance is to “[preserve existing tree canopy, and [encourage] additional tree canopy, to provide shade, moderate the effect of urban heat islands, and improve air quality.”
The Coalition’s letter states, “This is a laudable goal, but, when presented with a development that sacrifices virtually all natural landscaping and existing tree canopy, the City appears willing to accept clear-cutting of all vegetation to facilitate maximum development.”
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!
Support FXBG Advance for $8 a month
