A wide range of proposed changes to Fairfax County's Residential Development Criteria were debated at length Tuesday night by developers, residents and representatives of civic organizations.
First unveiled at a public information outreach session on April 6, under the aegis of the County Planning Commission, the proposed changes apply primarily to rezoning applications. Following that session attendees were asked to review the criteria and make suggestions for changes, additions and deletions.
Tuesday night's session was to air those comments and engage in a public debate about the merits of each of the eight areas under consideration. Approximately 60 people took part in the two-plus hour session at the Fairfax County Government Center.
At the initial session, Planning Commission Chairman Peter Murphy, assured the assemblage this was not an attempt to slow growth or stop growth. "It is a way to gain better coordination. Nothing has been locked in or is carved in stone," he said.
That assessment was verified at Tuesday's follow-up session when all comments from April 6 were printed on a subject by subject basis and supplied to the audience for their guidance. The next step in the process calls for the Planning Commission to further analyze the proposals and hold a public hearing in mid-June.
Following that session the County Board of Supervisors will consider the criteria in another public hearing at their July Board Meeting, according to the proposed schedule.
At both outreach sessions, attendees received a comprehensive information package dealing with Residential Development Criteria. It included both a working draft report and a multi-page document comparing existing criteria with proposed changes in the following categories: overall approach, implementation, site design, neighborhood context, environment, tree preservation, transportation, public facilities, affordable housing and heritage resources.
THE FIRST SESSION WAS deigned to inform the audience about the proposed changes. At the second, speakers were encouraged to expressed their reactions to and concerns with each category.
At the original outreach session, Barbara Byron, Director of the Zoning Evaluation Division, said, "The nature of our residential development has been shifting and we have been trying to address
that shift. The primary change is from the formula approach to a does-it-work approach for assessing rezoning applications."
One of the criteria cited April 6, as subject to the "does-it-work approach," was that of "useable yard area, particularly in the Mount Vernon District," according to Peter Graham, Department of Planning and Zoning. "You have to fit the criteria into the possibility," he said.
"If somebody does a really good job of addressing a particular issue we will be willing to consider a trade off on other items. What we have tried to do is define high quality. These development criteria are to be used in that context," Graham emphasized.
At Tuesday's debate there was some concern expressed that the "does-it-work" approach allowed for "too much wiggle room." During the discussion on site design and neighborhood context, one developer stated, "There has to be defined specifications" in order to facilitate the decision making process.
UNDER THE TOP OF ENVIRONMENT it was noted that some of the existing criteria being considered for replacement should be retained. "A lot of good criteria has been lost in the proposed changes such as credit for the preservation of wetlands," one speaker noted.
The County's approach to the use of cash proffers and the Tishler Report, addressing that subject, drew extensive questions at the original session and many comments Tuesday. Proffers are payments or conditions paid by developers to satisfy a specified requirement, provide resources for capital improvements, or provide funds to carry out a designated program.
Various jurisdictions in Virginia utilize cash proffers to address development impacts on public capital facilities, according to the distributed material. On Oct. 22, 2001, the County Board of Supervisors was presented with the Cash Proffer Guidelines Feasibility Study prepared by Tischler and Associates.
That report assigned a dollar amount to be provided by developers, on a per unit basis, to furnish funds for the county to provide certain public services and facilities. It covered schools, parks, libraries, fire/EMS, and police.
Each category was assigned a specified amount. Developers would be required to provide the following based on the type of structures: Single Family Detached - $11,730; Single family Attached - $9,570; and Multi-family - $6,875.
This element of the overall criteria evaluation proposes three alternatives: 1. Continue the current practice, to negotiate on a case-by-case basis; 2. Institute two separate approaches, depending on the public facility being addressed; 3. Cash proffer or equivalency approach.
It was emphasized that "proffers are voluntary." It was also pointed out, "the county does not have enabling fees to offset development impacts."
IN MAKING THE CASE FOR proffers, either cash or equivalency, Lee District Supervisor Dana Kauffman, explained to the audience Tuesday night, "We are trying to deal with the cumulative impact of development. I believe we are failing if we are not looking at it cumulatively.
"Every kid who wants to play ball and enjoy other recreational facilities should be able to do so in their area. And, I believe that by the mere existence of trailer classrooms we are failing. Capital improvements have worked well with large developments but not with small ones."
Most of the developers present saw proffers as nothing more than a form of taxation. As one put it, "Proffers are a misguided tax on new homeowners." Another stated, "Only four to six percent of public facilities funds would be gained through a cash proffer system."
The other argument put forth concerned the control of the money collected through proffers. Several speakers offered the opinion that "If you go to a cash proffer system the money should stay in the district where it is generated." They were against all cash proffers flowing to a centralized fund to be used for projects throughout the county.
Following these remarks, Kauffman summed up the dilemma on proffers and the essence of the two sessions by asking the audience, "How do you deal with localized needs and look at the big picture at the same time?"