Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
Department of Planning & Zoning
DATE:
April 7,2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
APR 7 2015
SPECIAL PERMIT &
VARIANCE BRANCH
(s&
On January 21, 2015, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held a public hearing for appeal
application A 2012-HM-020, which is an appeal of a determination that redevelopment of
property in the Planned Residential Community ("PRC") District from a golf course to
residential uses would require an amendment to the Reston Master Plan, which is a part of the
Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, and Development Plan Amendment approval from the
Board of Supervisors (Board). The BZA decision was deferred until April 15, 2015, with
submission deadlines given of April 1, 2015, to provide the requested follow up information,
and April 7, 2015, to respond to the follow up information submitted April 1, 2015. Staffs
additional information and rebuttal was provided in a follow up submission to the BZA dated
April 1, 2015. This Memorandum addresses the additional issues raised in the appellant's April
1, 2015, submission to the BZA and has been prepared with the assistance of the County
Attorney's Office.
A copy of the previously provided staff report is available here for your reference:
http://www.fairfaxcountv.gov/dpz/bza/appeals/appealstaffreports/a2012hm020.pdf.
Distilled to its essence, the applicant presents the following argument construct: (1) the
development plan presented by County staff is not stamped "approved," even though the stamp
did not exist until the mid-1980s; (2) numerous and consistent development plans produced by
Department of Planning and Zoning
&
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING
&ZONING
As set forth below, the GIS data upon which the appellant relies is subject to numerous
disclaimers and is unreliable for the purpose used. Further, any actual inconsistencies could be
attributable to the practice of shifting uses around prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
Krisnathevin v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax County, 243 Va. 251, 414 S.E.2d 595 (1992);
see Zon. Adm. April 1, 2015, submission atl2-13.
2 The appellant relies almost entirely upon the current Zoning Ordinance. Those provisions do
not apply retroactively to analyze the development plans approved in 1971.
Per the Zoning Administrator's April 1st memorandum, the note on the subdivision plats does
not allow for subdivision or modification upon submission of a mere amended plat - it requires
legislative approval of an amended development plan.
The approved development plans do not show the property surrounding the golf course simply
as designated "Residential" and allow for a free-for-all of residential development; instead, the
designations on the approved plans include specific densities, as well as types and units of
residential units, as required by Zoning Ordinance 30-2.2.2. Compared with those specific
designations of density and unit numbers, the same development plans show the subject
property as only "Golf Course, Permanent Open Space." There are no other notations or
designations for the golf course parcels,4 and they were not assigned any density or residential
designation. Thus, residential uses are not a permitted or "by right" use of the golf course.
Zoning Ordinance 30-2.2.2, Column 1(6) (declaring that "[ujses in an RPC District shall be
permissible only in those areas as designed on the development plan").
The Open Space designation must not be ignored in this analysis. According to the appellant,
the five "sub-category designations" act as an "arrow to direct a zoning applicant to the list of
permitted or permissible uses available to a property..." The Zoning Administrator does not
dispute that certain designations on a development plan allow for "by right" development of a
subset of permitted uses, subject to any noted restrictions or, now, proffers and subject to
conformance with all PRC plan standards. The approved development plans at issue in this
appeal, however, specifically designated the property only as "Golf Course, Permanent Open
Space" - that designation does not confer the right to develop a subset of permitted uses, other
than other open space or recreational uses. In fact, because the then-applicant was not seeking
approval of any other "permitted" uses, there was no reason to "point an arrow" to other such
uses by designating the golf course as any of the sub-categories. Open space was a stand-alone,
defined use that, when not intended to be developed with other uses, did not require a separate
category.5 See Zoning Ordinance 30-2.2.2, Column 9; Zon. Adm. Sub. at 8. Moreover, even
if the golf course could be construed as having been designated Residential, which it cannot, the
appellant's argument still falls short: residential density and unit counts had to be shown
specifically on a development plan to be "implemented" by right.
If the then-applicant went to the trouble of showing a golf course on the property (possibly to
avoid the need for a separate approval), surely it also would have identified the parcels with a
residential designation and established a density therefor if that had been the intent. According
to the development plans and the contemporaneous staff reports, meeting minutes and
advertisements, it was never the intent of the then-applicant or the Board to designate the golf
course property for residential uses. See Zon. Adm. Apr. 1, 2015, submission at 2-7.
4 The
appellant refers to a note in the staff report for RZ C-135, which purports to identify the
designation of the property on the Reston Plan at that time. (App. Subm. at 7). The staff report
reference is incomplete because the then-current Reston Plan showed the golf course.
5 The 1971 definition of "Open Space" did not require the space to be "available for entry and
use by residents or occupants of the development." (See Zon. Adm. Apr. 1, 2015, Subm. at 8.)
Conclusion
For all of the reasons stated, in addition to the information submitted on April 1, 2015, staff
respectfully recommends that the BZA uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination of
June 20, 2012, and deny the appeal.
cc: