One way or another, the days of huge new subdivisions in Arlington neighborhoods could be coming to an end in the near future. "I would not say that we’ll never see one [again]," said Susan Bell, director of the county department of planning, housing and development. "But I think it’s fair to say we won’t see many of them."
At their July 19 meeting, County Board members approved a Unified Residential Development, a plan that will put 14 new single-family homes on a 2.6-acre site, now holding one house, at the corner of Lorcom Lane and North Randolph Street.
Estate taxes on the property at 4014 N. Lorcom Lane were so high that the landowner was forced to sell, and the developer who purchased the plot made plans to subdivide the large lot to accommodate the new buildings.
It was a rare opportunity in Arlington. As land in the county becomes increasingly scarce, fewer tracts remain where development of this magnitude will physically fit. But it’s not just a lack of space that could bring an end to large in-fill development projects like this.
After hearing concerns of neighbors and Planning Commissioners on Saturday, Board member Chris Zimmerman said it might be time to reexamine the entire URD process.
Board members established the URD provision in 1997 as a way to encourage creative development that protects the environment and allows developers to compromise with neighbors.
BUT MANY Dominion Hills residents said the process failed in this case, and at least one board member was inclined to agree. "This process is more contentious than collaborative," said Jim Stimmel, who lives directly across from the property.
"I’m deeply disturbed by all we’ve heard on this," said Zimmerman. "This one is disturbing because nobody feels good about it, whether they’re for it or against it."
Stimmel ultimately urged board members to approve the project despite criticizing the URD process. Neighbors felt they had few options, said Bobbi Kelafant, who lives on Lorcom Lane. "They’re not unified, they’re resigned."
"Do I support the URD? I don’t feel like I have a choice," said William Savarino. "And that’s the problem."
The project wasn’t without support. Members of St. Andrews Episcopal Church, bordering the property, said the URD was far better than the alternative. "The by-right plan is the most invasive into our existing property and our parish life," said the Rev. Ellen White, pastor of St. Andrews.
The URD plan offers other advantages, including protection of trees on the site.
UNIFIED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT isn’t supposed to solve all the problems with infill development, and that’s the real source of controversy, said Board member Jay Fisette. The 1997 zoning provision was designed, in effect, to mitigate the unfavorable results of by-right development, he said.
Because by-right development doesn’t require county board approval, many neighbors are unhappy with the results, so the URD is usually a better option.
This time, it may not have been, Zimmerman said.
But Barnes Lawson, a land-use lawyer representing the developer, disagreed. "I think he was not accurate," said Lawson in an interview. "I think it did work out. I think [critical neighbors] had the expectation that there would be reduced units." When addressing the board, Lawson emphasized that the URD provision was never intended to force developers to drop units, which can cut into profits.
"You have to remember, they’re in this for the millions," said Joan Perry, a neighbor who called the URD process a "train wreck."
"I think all will agree that the process was fatally flawed," said Mike Nardolilli, vice president of the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust.
"This process has gotten out of hand," said Zimmerman.
He wasn’t the only board member who suggested changes could be on the horizon for URD’s. "Your comments are on the one hand troubling to us as a board," said Board Chair Paul Ferguson, in response to Savarino. "But also very well-taken."