As a resident of the Clover-College Park neighborhood I am dismayed and bemused by the latest contentious development issue before the City Council. At issue, the property rights of a home owner, affirmed by the city, over the objections of several neighbors. The owner petitioned the city to subdivide his two large adjoining lots into three. The Planning Commission approved the request to the dismay of neighbors. Their concern is rooted not so much in the subdivision, rather in what might be built there and how it could change the characteristics of the neighborhood. The owner has attempted to reassure neighbors he has no plans to build anything in the immediate future; he sought only to reserve the right to do so. Moreover, any new structure would need to conform to existing zoning and code requirements; and get through a separate set of city approvals.
Opponents to the subdivision have used the term “developer” when referring to the petition’s applicant; something the owner rightfully believes is a gross misrepresentation of his status. The owner’s assurances that he has no intention to sell the properties to a “real developer” have been met with skepticism. This is not a repudiation of the owner’s integrity; it’s simply prudent recognition that circumstances often can and do change.
Neighborhood opponents appealed to the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the subdivision. The issue before the council was whether the Planning Commission erred in granting approval. In other words, did the approval violate the law? The city attorney does not believe so and cautioned councilmembers they would need to cite a legal basis for overturning the commission’s ruling. However, rather than make a decision on the simple question before them, the council punted, returning the matter to the commission for further consideration until later this year; likely delaying any action until after the fall election. Where was the council’s concern for the integrity of a neighborhood when they approved the 75,000-square-foot assisted living facility on the 2800 block of King Street, an area zoned as single-family residential land? With few exceptions the council consistently votes against home owners in favor of outside interests under the guise of “the greater good.”
How many councilmembers bothered to visit the neighborhood before the hearing? The Clover-College Park subdivision does not call for a change in zoning, it simply calls for creation of a new residential lot that conforms to existing lots within the neighborhood. It will not radically change the face of the neighborhood, disrupt life for residence or increase traffic density; like the approved Waterfront development. Nor will it add to the city’s debt, like the recently approved Potomac Yard Metro Station. So why is the council so reticent to act in this instance? Perhaps, with an eye to the fall election, some members viewed this as an opportunity to demonstrate backbone by not giving in to yet another developer; if you accept that characterization of an ordinary property owner. If this is the case, then sadly politics and not governance are at play.
I’m proud of my Clover-College Park neighbors; opinions might differ but all involved followed the process set forth by the city for seeking remedies. The majority of the council decided to postpone a decision. Election politics should not be a factor in matters effecting the lives of real people. If current members of the council fail to understand this, I suspect challengers will succeed in deposing them.
Roy R. Byrd
Alexandria