Planning Commission approves Peace Valley Lane development

At issue is a proposal to amend the Fairfax County
Comprehensive Plan to allow the Concordia Group to proceed with a rezoning
application to build seven houses on a 1.89-acre tract in a neighborhood zoned
R-3. Ravenwood Park residents have actively opposed the plan amendment for more than a year.

Also at last night’s meeting, the Planning Commission deferred
a vote, for the second time, on a proposed re-zoning request to allow the
development of 35 detached houses on the Campbell and Ferrara property on
Little River Turnpike. That proposal will be taken up on June 14.

Because current residential zoning (R-2) wouldn’t support
such a high-density development, the developer, listed as Neighborhoods VI, is
proposing the property be given a “planned development housing” zoning
designation (PDH-12), which calls for a homeowners association to manage the
common areas and stormwater system. Residents of the adjacent Willow Run community
oppose the project.

The Mason Land Use Committee, an advisory body that
considers rezoning requests, and the Mason District Council of Community Associations, which serves as an umbrella group for neighborhood organizations, oppose both
developments.

During the discussion of the Peace Valley Lane proposal, Janet Hall, the commissioner representing the Mason District, acknowledged that many people from Ravenwood Park oppose it. “However, the people who are directly affected by this in the R-3 zoning were in favor of being involved in the development,” she said. “I’ve often said that land use is not a popularity contest. It isn’t how many votes you get on one side versus the other.”

For Hall, a key issue is access. “Everyone agrees that they do not want Peace Valley to go all the way to Route 7 and I support that,” she said. While language prohibiting that road from being extended cannot be incorporated into the plan—that decision would be up to VDOT—Hall said: “What we are proposing is not to open Peace Valley. It can either be developed going north or it can be developed going south. Nothing supports Peace Valley going to Route 7. I want that perfectly clear.”

“One of the things that have been very frustrating for me as a planning commissioner when dealing with this application,” she said, “is the difference between a plan amendment and a rezoning application.” Because this proposal is a plan amendment, “most members of the community are exceedingly frustrated by the fact that they don’t have details” on such issues as stormwater management or setbacks.

If the rezoning application is approved, there could be a maximum of seven units on the property, she said. That would be beneficial because “it would require that the traffic go to Route 7 and not through the community. It would also allow for the community to try to secure the mature trees and the other significant vegetation that is on the site. There is also a requirement that the houses be placed 35 feet from the rear property line.”

And because the property is adjacent to a townhouse community and church parking lot, as well as a single-family neighborhood, Hall said, “the slight increase in density to address the access issue is warranted in this case.”