Work underway on infill housing opposed by Malbrook residents
 |
| The site of an infill housing project at the end of Brooks Place. |
Work is under way on an infill housing development between
the Lake Barcroft and Malbrook communities, even though Malbrook residents charge
the project is in violation of their subdivision’s covenants.
the Lake Barcroft and Malbrook communities, even though Malbrook residents charge
the project is in violation of their subdivision’s covenants.
Malbrook residents’ lawsuit to block the development was
denied a hearing by the Virginia Supreme Court in July. But that doesn’t mean
the county and developer have the right to ignore the covenants, says Malbrook
resident Darren Gruendal.
denied a hearing by the Virginia Supreme Court in July. But that doesn’t mean
the county and developer have the right to ignore the covenants, says Malbrook
resident Darren Gruendal.
 |
| Brooks place |
Evergreen Homes plans to build eight single-family homes on
a four-acre property at the end of Brooks Place. Within the past few weeks,
Evergreen has begun site preparation, installed a silt fence for erosion
control around the property and removed several large holly trees that Malbrook
residents say were supposed to be protected.
a four-acre property at the end of Brooks Place. Within the past few weeks,
Evergreen has begun site preparation, installed a silt fence for erosion
control around the property and removed several large holly trees that Malbrook
residents say were supposed to be protected.
Evergreen can build the houses by-right, Gruendel says, but the
only way to get to that property is via Brooks Place, which the Malbrook
residents contend is a private road. They charge that Evergreen, with Fairfax
County approval, is attempting to widen a section of Brooks Place, which would
be in violation of the covenant deed established when Malbrook was built in
1947.
only way to get to that property is via Brooks Place, which the Malbrook
residents contend is a private road. They charge that Evergreen, with Fairfax
County approval, is attempting to widen a section of Brooks Place, which would
be in violation of the covenant deed established when Malbrook was built in
1947.
“We have a 70-year-old contract. You can’t say it doesn’t
exist,” he says. “This is really bizarre.”
exist,” he says. “This is really bizarre.”
Attempts to develop the Brooks Place property in 2008 and
2009 were rejected by the county, and in 2011, the county put the development
plan on “administrative hold” because “a portion of a residential lot dedicated
for a public right of way is encumbered by a private covenant.”
2009 were rejected by the county, and in 2011, the county put the development
plan on “administrative hold” because “a portion of a residential lot dedicated
for a public right of way is encumbered by a private covenant.”
“The county has apparently completely switched its position regarding
the protection of individual property rights in favor of the rights of
developers,” Gruendel says. “It’s a little hard to tell why or what
justification they claim because, despite repeated requests, they just won’t say.”
the protection of individual property rights in favor of the rights of
developers,” Gruendel says. “It’s a little hard to tell why or what
justification they claim because, despite repeated requests, they just won’t say.”
The county can either tell the residents outright that they
have “the statutory right to supersede the covenants or take the land by
eminent domain,” he says. They are doing neither; “this is sloppy and ugly.”
have “the statutory right to supersede the covenants or take the land by
eminent domain,” he says. They are doing neither; “this is sloppy and ugly.”
According to Gruendel, residents have paid for
maintenance and snow removal on Brooks Place; not the county nor VDOT. And they
contend VDOT records identify it as a “privately maintained road.”
maintenance and snow removal on Brooks Place; not the county nor VDOT. And they
contend VDOT records identify it as a “privately maintained road.”
Fairfax County, however, considers Brooks Place a “gray
area” that is neither public nor private, he says.
area” that is neither public nor private, he says.
When the developer claimed it was a public road and had no
encumbrances on it, VDOT signed off on a design review for the project. Gruendel says the VDOT approval was made under “false pretenses”
and should be revoked.
encumbrances on it, VDOT signed off on a design review for the project. Gruendel says the VDOT approval was made under “false pretenses”
and should be revoked.
According to Gruendel, the county’s contention that it “owns
the road in fee simple is just not true and we have cited the codes supporting
our position. They own a right of way subject to the restrictions in the
deeds.” And he says, neither the county attorney’s office nor the Board of
Supervisors have provided a justification for their positions “which is so
obviously in conflict with the facts.”
the road in fee simple is just not true and we have cited the codes supporting
our position. They own a right of way subject to the restrictions in the
deeds.” And he says, neither the county attorney’s office nor the Board of
Supervisors have provided a justification for their positions “which is so
obviously in conflict with the facts.”
In an Aug. 3 email to Malbrook resident Maria Smith, Mason
Supervisor Penny Gross said a review by the county attorney “reveals no
conflicts with any applicable county and state statutes, rules, codes, or
regulations. Brooks Place is an unimproved county dedicated road (dedicated in
1946, as you are aware) and owned by Fairfax County in fee simple, even though
it is privately maintained.”
Supervisor Penny Gross said a review by the county attorney “reveals no
conflicts with any applicable county and state statutes, rules, codes, or
regulations. Brooks Place is an unimproved county dedicated road (dedicated in
1946, as you are aware) and owned by Fairfax County in fee simple, even though
it is privately maintained.”
According to Gross, “Revised plans submitted to the county
were deemed to be compliant by the appropriate reviewing agencies and I, as an
elected official, have no authority to require that construction be stopped.”
were deemed to be compliant by the appropriate reviewing agencies and I, as an
elected official, have no authority to require that construction be stopped.”
Gross has not responded to further emails from Malbrook
residents, including an Aug. 4 message from Jose Ruisanchez asking: “On what
authority has the county gained control over our rights? We are yet to receive
a single citation of law or code regarding the county’s authority on this
matter.
residents, including an Aug. 4 message from Jose Ruisanchez asking: “On what
authority has the county gained control over our rights? We are yet to receive
a single citation of law or code regarding the county’s authority on this
matter.
“Saddened by the loss of our trees,” Ruisanchez told Gross, “We
hold you and your county colleagues responsible for all this damage and for the
disrespect for our property rights.”
hold you and your county colleagues responsible for all this damage and for the
disrespect for our property rights.”
For the Malbrook residents, the dispute isn’t just about the
eight houses at the end of Brooks Place. There’s a 10-acre wooded lot between
Brooks Place and Sleepy Hollow Road owned by the Glavis family that could
support 20 new houses.
eight houses at the end of Brooks Place. There’s a 10-acre wooded lot between
Brooks Place and Sleepy Hollow Road owned by the Glavis family that could
support 20 new houses.
“Our expectation is that will absolutely be developed,” Gruendel
says. He believes it would be financially advantageous for the developers to
use Brooks Place as the access point to that development, so any actions to make
Brooks Place a public road would favor that development.
says. He believes it would be financially advantageous for the developers to
use Brooks Place as the access point to that development, so any actions to make
Brooks Place a public road would favor that development.
If the access to the Glavis property were from Sleepy Hollow
Road, he says, that would cut into the number of houses that could be built,
thus reducing the developer’s profits.
Road, he says, that would cut into the number of houses that could be built,
thus reducing the developer’s profits.
11 responses to “Work underway on infill housing opposed by Malbrook residents”
Leave a reply
This is such a nice and IMHO opinion unique area that it saddens me that they are just going to destroy it. I walk past here fairly often and just loved looking at several of the homes and their well kept yards.
The Sleep Hollow corridor has been hammered by development for years. So, face it, the days when the area was a picturesque almost idyllic rural refuge are long over. At the current rate of transformation, most of Mason will soon be urbanized to the same extent as Arlington. The only difference is that many homes in Mason still occupy larger lots. However, as infill progresses, I expect developers to also begin consolidating as many of those as possible to build townhouses.
On a related note, does anyone know where there's a copy of the Fairfax Circuit Court's opinion in the Malbrook case? I'd like to review the judge's specific findings of fact as they relate to the legal status of Brooks Place.
Anonymous8/25/16, 7:15 PM,
I agree with that. There have been a number of larger properties for sale around my house and it is my fear that whenever one sells they will put up town homes.
I did think the zoning would have stopped the density of these houses or town homes but I am not sure how hard it is to change the zoning.
It is a shame though. I thought it was a unique area and one of the homes very close to this property is my dream home.
Or was. 🙁
Penny wise and pound foolish decision, what Gross negligence on behalf of the County.
Deed covenants are worthless in regards to enforcing the rights contained within them. Unless you are a HOA you are dirt in the eyes of the law.
I sincerely hope the folks who live on Brook Place didn't vote for Penny.
Bet if you look at her campaign contributions you'll find this developer.
I checked Penny's campaign contributions at VPAP.org. This developer was NOT listed as being a donor.
Try looking to see if the developer operates under the name of other LLCs or Corporations that donated to Penny. Crosscheck her donors with the State Corporation Commission lists online.
Been following this story for a number of years [I am a neighbor here] and I am stunned. "Gross" negligence is right! You think its bad now, wait until they demo and clear the Glavis property and build 20 McMansions within 8 feet of one another.
There isn't enough information in this story to draw any accurate conclusions about the Malbrook residents' claim. What's missing is the specific language of the covenant on which the residents based their case as well as the Circuit Court's reason for refusing to apply that covenant to bar the proposed construction. Without that information, you're wasting your time in useless speculation. Moreover, pointing fingers at Penny and county bureaucrats is pointless. That's because the resolution of property disputes like this one are the ultimate responsibility of the courts and they've made their final determination in this matter. Although no one wants to see their pristine vistas torn up by developers, the County cannot arbitrarily interfere with the development of private property.
Shhh! You're being too reasonable!