Friday, December 01, 2006

Undoing Proffers

I happened to watch the Fairfax County Planning Commission meeting last night on cable TV. Even I thought this was a strange way to spend my time. However, I am glad that I did.

The meeting included a discussion of an application by a builder to amend its proffers. It seems that the original proffers for the rezoning included a restriction that no decks could be built closer than 15 feet from any lot line. This made sense apparently because the new development would contain approximately 3.6 dwellings per acre. That is dense housing that requires protection of neighbors' privacy and security interests. This commitment was a part of the "deal" between the developer, the county, the neighbors and the rest of the residents of Fairfax County.

However, it seems that several homeowners in this community later applied for, and received, building permits to construct decks that exceeded the size permitted by the proffers. Some decks extended to within five feet of lot lines. Even later, several other homeowners sought building permits to construct similar decks, but were rejected because the county realized that the proffers prohibited them. Thus, we have some homeowners with illegal decks and others who cannot build the same deck as their neighbors. The developer has now proposed to amend its proffer to permit decks within 5 feet of a lot line.

The Planning Commission was unable to reach a decision and deferred the matter for one week. This is a mess! There are equitable arguments on both sides of this issue. A homeowner who followed the rules and obtained a building permit for deck has likely spent thousands of dollars. Should those decks be torn out? Other homeowners seemingly want to build similar decks, but cannot. Is that fair? What about a resident who doesn't want his/her next door neighbor's deck in clear view and expected at least 15 feet of privacy and security protection? Does such person have no rights?

But the issue of proffers goes beyond the immediate homeowners. The proffers are part of a bargained social contract between the developer and the county, acting on behalf of its citizens. The developer received permission to build more densely and to make greater profits in exchange for some promised behaviors. The developer received benefit, but the residents of the county are being denied theirs in return. While this dispute is just about decks, it is still symptomatic of the larger problem -- no one monitors whether proffer and other zoning conditions are being met. Who is protecting the public interest by ensuring that proffers conditions are met? To their credit, several commissioners expressed concern about this problem. Also, there are no quick fixes, but action is needed.

Will the Planning Commission escalate this problem to the BoS? Will the BoS act? Will our supervisors spend less time trying to promote more development in the county and more time making sure that development occurs in compliance with all zoning and proffer conditions? This situation is simply not acceptable. We need action now.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home