There was a very interesting article in Inside Nova a few days ago. Let me refresh everyone’s memory. The Mayor of Occoquan and Supervisor May, along with many many residents, opposed the rezoning of Oaks III back in January. Here is the fabulous op-ed written by the Mayor Porta.
The developer cites two features of his proposal in particular. First, he notes that he is setting aside a portion of the parcel in a conservation easement. On closer inspection, however, this appears to be mostly window dressing, as the conservation easement basically covers the portion of the property on which RPAs, slopes, and other features essentially preclude development. Second, the developer asserts that his project will actually improve storm water management in the area. What only becomes clear with further analysis, however, is that this assertion is based in part on his offer to fix the problem created by inadequate storm water management on his adjoining commercial property. In fact, poorly-planned prior projects by the developer are the catalyst for this entire rezoning effort. By his own admission the developer was originally interested only in purchasing a small piece of the Oaks III parcel to solve the problem of insufficient parking, again on his adjoining commercial property. Unfortunately, the property owner has insisted on purchase of the entire parcel, which has in turn led the developer to attempt to cram an office building on the site in the hopes of subsidizing his purchase costs.
Let’s fast forward to the present, with the desired rezoning, the Developer has put the land up for sale. So, the Mayor, a multitude of residents, and the district Supervisor were all ignored by a majority of the Board, inlcuding Corey Stewart, who, in his great knowledge of environmetnal stewardship (NOT), approved this development that is now in the process of being sold shortly after it was rezoned. Apparently, it appears, as though the developer, Ken Thompson, was seeing dollar signs instead of following through with committments he made to the concerned citizens of Occoquan.
There you go, business as usual in PWC. I always find it interesting that when citizens oppose development for valid reasons, they are always ignored. I wonder what Mayor Porta is thinking now?
Having been there, I probably know what he’s thinking better than most, it just not printable on a family blog. I will have to look into whether the parcel has been subdivided to solve his parking problem.
I don’t know all of the particulars around this project so don’t cut my head off (!) but in a general sense this isn’t all that unusual. What normally happens is that the project is proffered with certain features (architecture, parks, etc, etc) and then, if sold, the proffers transfer with the project. This has happened several times in the City.
This happens b/c there are developers and there are builders and developers aren’t always builders. The developers accumulate the necessary property, right of way, etc and then negotiate an agreement with the locality. After that, they sometimes sell the deal to a builder.
The downside can be that the buyer (builder in this case) of the project isn’t wild about the proffer agreement with the locality and comes back in to alter the deal. The locality doesn’t have to agree if they don’t want to but it can make residents angry. This is what happened with Hastings Marketplace in the City but the Council ultimately declined to accept any changes to the proffers.
@Mom
Are we a family blog?
@AndyH
When I have the time to put together a long, cogent comment, I will politely cut your head off. That being said, what you say is generally correct in most jurisdictions and may very well be true of the city, it is not however true when it comes to PWC. Rezonings, Comp. Plans, development applications, proffered conditions, etc. are all written in faint pencil so they can be easily erased and changed. I have a laundry list of examples large and small. PWC is the laughing stock of the state when it comes to land use and is frequently referred to as the Wild Wild West of Land Use by land use attorneys and developers from outside the county. Most are shocked at the behavior of county staff, the BOCS and a certain land use law firm, particularly as campaign contributions are the coin of the realm and a step in the application process for that firm.
Please remember that Andy is a friend of ours and we like him. I think you can tell him what you have to say and allow him to keep his head. {stern Moon look}
@Moon-howler
Close enough, besides, the expletive filled tirade I could write would make a sailor blush and given some mental pictures I’m not sure they could handle.
@Moon-howler
OK, politely hand him his head.
@MoM
I will be watching for that politeness. Offer him a drink while you do this too, please.
Andy,
Unfortunately I know all too well how land use works in PWC. It rarely has anything to do with comprehensive long term planning but instead who greases who’s coffers.
@Mom
“PWC is the laughing stock of the state when it comes to land use”
True dat, MoM, true dat.