OPINION: 'Where It All Comes Together'?
Charges of "uncontrolled growth" and "secrecy" around Mary's Landing leave some citizens asking why council won't come together with them to discuss the project.
As members of the Fredericksburg Neighborhoods Coalition, we are City residents dedicated to the concept of sensible growth and government transparency. Over the past seven months, we have expressed a number of concerns over a proposed development in the City known as Mary’s Landing.
We believe this project represents a perfect example of increasingly “uncontrolled growth” and government secrecy in the City.
Beginning back in January, we expressed serious concerns to City staff and elected officials about this project, which would consist of 1½ city blocks of 63 high-density townhouses across Fall Hill Avenue from the old Mary Washington Hospital.
Because the City has not held, and still has no plans to hold, a single public hearing on this major residential project, we organized two community meetings in the Canal Quarter neighborhood and presented evidence as to why we believe the project violates the City’s zoning and subdivision ordinances and is contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
We even sought the advice of a land-use attorney from Northern Virginia, who validated our concerns and recently wrote a letter to the City Attorney, explaining why the City should reject the site plan filed by the developers. That site plan still awaits City staff approval.
On July 9, the City Attorney responded to our attorney’s letter, asserting that the development is “by right,” based upon lots drawn on an 1891 plat by the Fredericksburg Development Company, and that the City cannot hold the project to the density limits set forth in the City’s zoning ordinance or to the public hearing process outlined in the City’s subdivision ordinance.
We have tried to raise these issues with our elected City Council members, but they will not even discuss our concerns because they claim that the Coalition has “lawyered up” and have threatened litigation.
The City’s position is disturbing for several reasons. Our concerns are not just about “technical” issues normally raised through the site-plan review process. On the contrary, our concerns involve three fundamental policy and legal issues.
First, does our zoning ordinance take precedence over an 1891 plat and require the developers to comply with the density limits outlined in our current ordinance? We believe that the requirements of state law and our own zoning regulations require the developer to meet all of our current zoning standards, regardless of how many old lots may be involved.
We find it deeply ironic that City residents are the ones upholding and defending the City’s own zoning ordinance, which says that “by-right” development in the Creative Maker District cannot exceed eight dwelling units per acre. This project purports to have the right to build 16 units per acre—twice the density limits in our ordinance. Why won’t the City defend its own ordinance?
Second, the City’s subdivision ordinance requires that when a developer seeks to make wholesale changes in 63 existing lots, thus creating 63 new lots, this constitutes a classic “re-subdivision,” which our ordinance treats the same as any other subdivision where new lots are being created.
While state courts have confirmed this interpretation, city staff, with its uniquely bizarre interpretation, insist that if a parcel having 63 lots is re-subdivided into 63 new lots, each differing from the original in acreage, location and boundary lines, it is somehow NOT a re-subdivision.
Our City ordinance requires that a re-subdivision of 63 existing lots must be subject to public hearings and approval by City Council and an opportunity for citizen involvement.
Why won’t the City defend its own subdivision ordinance? Why won’t Council at least hold a public hearing to explain staff’s position? This is a matter of public policy, not some “technical” issue left to City staff.
If you follow the City’s illogic and allow such manipulation of our subdivision ordinance in this case, City Council may find itself helpless in the future when a developer seeks approval for another major new project without any Planning Commission or Council involvement. This essentially constitutes a “power grab” by developers and City staff that the Council and the public may come to regret in the future.
Third, and perhaps most disturbing, is the fact that Council refuses to hold any public discussion of these issues. Just the opposite. Council members and the City Attorney are hiding behind a legal “smokescreen,” claiming that because our attorney has sent a letter questioning the City’s position on Mary’s Landing, they cannot have any public discussion or public hearing on these concerns.
We have not threatened litigation. However, even if we had, why should that prevent the City from addressing our legitimate concerns? Former City Attorney Jim Pates is one of our members and recently informed the Coalition, “In my 18 years as City Attorney, I don’t recall ever advising the Council to avoid all public discussion of a contentious issue for fear that it would harm the City’s interests.”
Instead, the new City Attorney wrote to our attorney, saying “It is highly recommended that your clients engage the developer rather than elected or appointed officials if they want to see changes to the development plan other than those noted in the comment letters issued by Community Planning and Building.”
If the City feels confident in its legal position, why not explain it openly to the public and tout its position proudly? Is Council afraid to explain its decisions to its own citizens?
The Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney should all welcome a full and open airing of these issues and rest assured that such dialogue will ultimately benefit the City. The City’s website says our City government is “where it all comes together,” but is this really true when developers and City staff seem to be dictating public policy without engaging the public?
How can we come together when the public is left out?
Signed,
Harold Bannister
Jackie Emery
Raymond Herlong
Bruce Inglis
Ralph Joseph
Rebecca Light
Anne Little
Vicky Lutman
Bea Paolucci
Jim Pates
Amber Peebles
Melissa Schneider
Donna Stanton
Wayne Stanton
Bryan Stelmok
Susan Tyler
Mary Ellen Wheeler
Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | YouTube
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:
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!
I'd wondered about that last one a bit. One of the most basic duties of government is to hear and offer an opportunity for redress of grievance. And why is an interested citizen engaging a professional advocate a disqualification for participating in that function of government?
Would you say that you would not treat an illness if the patient consulted a doctor? The city has an attorney. I suspect the developer has an attorney. He certainly has a right to hire one if he chooses and consult him about this matter or any other.
Last I heard, it's an honorable profession.
It is not unreasonable for citizens to expect their government to discuss their concerns.
Like the former city attorney, I do not understand the City's position on the matter of discussion, even - no, especially if they feel they are in the right on the issue that is being discussed. It's not only something they should do, it's something they have a duty to do.
What a shame. Thanks for writing.