FXCO Planning Commission again delays action on Peace Valley Lane
The Fairfax County Planning Commission deferred a decision
on the plan amendment to facilitate a housing development on Peace Valley Lane
after Janet Hall, the commissioner representing Mason District, changed the
proposal three hours before the meeting.
on the plan amendment to facilitate a housing development on Peace Valley Lane
after Janet Hall, the commissioner representing Mason District, changed the
proposal three hours before the meeting.
She asked the commission to move the issue to the April 26
meeting, after residents of the Ravenwood Park community complained they hadn’t
had enough time to review the changes.
meeting, after residents of the Ravenwood Park community complained they hadn’t
had enough time to review the changes.
The Ravenwood Park Citizens Association (RPCA) board
continues to oppose any changes to the county’s Comprehensive Plan that would allow
increased density in the 1.89-acre property. They believe the property should
remain zoned R-3 (allowing three houses per acre) in keeping with the rest of
the neighborhood.
The developer, the Concordia Group, has been pursuing a
revision of the Comprehensive Plan, which would smooth the way for him to
request that it be rezoned to allow as many as eight houses in a development he is calling “Peace Valley Estates.”
revision of the Comprehensive Plan, which would smooth the way for him to
request that it be rezoned to allow as many as eight houses in a development he is calling “Peace Valley Estates.”
Hall had revised the plan amendment to address issues raised
by four Ravenwood Park homeowners who do not oppose the Concordia development
but sought several trade-offs, including assurances that Peace Valley Lane not
become a through street; that the project be limited to seven, rather than
eight houses; and that a wider buffer of vegetation be required between the new
and existing houses.
by four Ravenwood Park homeowners who do not oppose the Concordia development
but sought several trade-offs, including assurances that Peace Valley Lane not
become a through street; that the project be limited to seven, rather than
eight houses; and that a wider buffer of vegetation be required between the new
and existing houses.
Hall’s last-minute plan revisions address additional
concerns raised by those residents: The only access to the new development
would be a private road from Leesburg Pike, which ensures the two segments of Peace
Valley Lane would not be connected; the new houses would be 35 feet from the rear
property line; and a pedestrian trail
be routed to preserve existing landscaping.
concerns raised by those residents: The only access to the new development
would be a private road from Leesburg Pike, which ensures the two segments of Peace
Valley Lane would not be connected; the new houses would be 35 feet from the rear
property line; and a pedestrian trail
be routed to preserve existing landscaping.
“With the latest revision, we now feel confident that we are
relying on the Comprehensive Plan, not relying on the developer. This is key
since other neighborhoods in the Mason District have failed to implement our
approach of adequately altering the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to gain
control of the end product,” said Ravenwood Park resident Pat Hoar.
relying on the Comprehensive Plan, not relying on the developer. This is key
since other neighborhoods in the Mason District have failed to implement our
approach of adequately altering the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to gain
control of the end product,” said Ravenwood Park resident Pat Hoar.
Although the RPCA board still opposes the plan amendment, they
are not against any development on the Peace Valley Lane site. They believe the
property should be limited to two houses, and they oppose the county’s attempt
to address this issue through a plan amendment, which sidesteps the normal
Area Plan Review and rezoning processes.
are not against any development on the Peace Valley Lane site. They believe the
property should be limited to two houses, and they oppose the county’s attempt
to address this issue through a plan amendment, which sidesteps the normal
Area Plan Review and rezoning processes.
