from Archives - News

Council Cites School Overcrowding, Precedent As Concerns In Festival Lakes Rezoning Denial

(Created: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:56 AM EST)

| Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (7 comment(s)) |
Despite a recommendation of approval by the planning commission earlier this month, Leesburg Town Council members last night cited serious concerns before voting to deny a rezoning to planned residential neighborhood of property owned by JR Festival Lakes.

The development application for the 105-acre parcel off Fort Evans Road sought permission to build 275 residential units while offering more open space and tree save area than necessitated by the Town Plan. Developer Michael Capretti of The Gulick Group had also pledged more than $8 million in proffers, which included the widening of a portion of Fort Evans Road to River Creek Parkway and a $4.7 million contribution to Loudoun County Public Schools. But to several town council members, concerns about the overcrowding of Catoctin Elementary School, where children from the development would attend under the county's current attendance zone, as well as allowing a higher density rezoning, outweighed the positives about the development.

Councilman Ken Reid said that he feared that approving another development would lead to the overcrowding of Catoctin Elementary, which he thought could force children to be bused to another school.

"Where the demographics are going, Catoctin is going to be overcrowded very shortly," Reid said. "This is going to have an impact on public schools."

Supervisors Sally Kurtz (D-Catoctin) and Lori Waters (R-Broad) had submitted a proposal to council members asking them to allow "flexible language" to Capretti's $4.7 million schools proffer that would allow some of the money to go help pay for the widening of Riverside Parkway. Many council members struggled with this proposal, fearing that taking money away from schools was not the right move. Reid also thought that the proffer money could go towards a town transportation project, as the Riverside Parkway widening would be outside town limits.

"Instead of putting money into Riverside Parkway, why not offsite dollars into Battlefield Parkway," Reid questioned.

Councilwoman Katie Sheldon Hammler also said she thought the property proposed for development would be ideal for a school, not another residential subdivision. She also said that using the proffer money to fix transportation problems could continue a problem the county is facing.

"Are we going to keep on the track of fixing transportation problems by building more houses," Hammler asked.

Mayor Kristen Umstattd also questioned how the town could attract a business base if it kept annexing properties and rezoning at a higher residential density. The Festival Lakes property was annexed into the town in April 2006 and zoned as residential. The density for the proposed development was 2.81 dwelling units/acre, compared with neighboring Potomac Station's 2.9 du/acre and Spring Lakes 3 du/acre.

"Residential rezonings make me nervous," Umstattd said. "I'd hate to see us at a posture where we're agreeing to every high-density residential development. I don't see how we can build our business base if we keep approving more and more houses."

Umstattd said she would like to see the property used for a campus-like office park. According to senior planner Chris Murphy, building an office park on that site would require a Town Plan amendment that would designate the area as a community or regional office. It would also require the land to be re-zoned to O1.

Umstattd also mentioned she was worried about the impact the proposed development would have on Catoctin ES.

"Catoctin cannot absorb a whole lot of new students," Umstattd said. "It's been the backup school for a number of older schools that are now overcrowded. Even adding two more children to each classroom at Catoctin sufficiently impacts the educational experience there."

Councilman Kevin Wright, who sought to defer the decision on the application, cautioned council members that the proposed development was in compliance with the Town Plan and said he worried about the precedent being set if council denied the application.

"If we find ourselves not supporting something checked off favorably I'm concerned about the message we're sending to the development community," Wright said. "If we vote down things that are in compliance [with town planning policies] the development community is going to wonder what they're supposed to do."

Wright also pointed out that Capretti had "stepped forward and worked with the community," which he said was evidenced by the tone of some of the public comments made at Tuesday's meeting.

Capretti noted that he had reached out to the surrounding residents and also to neighboring Good Times Park, which is the home of Central Loudoun Little League. He also emphasized that the development was in accordance with the Town Plan.

"We've addressed everything town staff has asked us to address," Capretti said. "We've worked hard with our future neighbors. We're dealing with a project that for years and years has been a picnic place and suburbs have grown up around it. It's the hole in the middle of the donut."

Potomac Station homeowner's association president Roland Smith also said that he and his community had no quarrels with Capretti and said that if the project were to proceed they would work diligently with him to facilitate his needs.

"This fine gentleman and his associates have been more than gracious in their efforts of assistance," Smith said. "We can and will work towards the mutual benefits of residents. We don't want to be an impediment to progress that may be of mutual interest."

Smith said he was mindful that at some time the land would be developed, but said he believed the town still needed to get better control of the rapid growth of the area.

Hammler made a motion to deny the project, which was seconded by Reid. The motion to deny the application passed with a 4-1-1-1 vote, with Hammler, Reid, Umstattd and Vice Mayor Susan Horne voting to deny and Wright the lone dissenter. Councilwoman Kelly Burk abstained and Councilman Fernando "Marty" Martinez was absent.

Video Comments

Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of Leesburg Today.
Total Comments: 7 comment(s)

Leesburg Citizen wrote on Dec 5, 2007 12:36 PM:

" What the heck? Didn't the town just approve a bunch of condos/townhomes instead of retail on the corner of Potomac Station Dr. and Battlefield Pkwy? Cram 'em in! Just wait, they'll probably stick a driv-thru bank in there too. "

paperboy wrote on Nov 30, 2007 4:20 PM:

" lsbgmom - the BOS wants Leesburg to change the school proffers to road proffers, specifically to help widen Riverside Pkwy, which isn't even in Leesburg town limits. That means zero money for schools and zero money for Leesburg roads. The ballfields are not impacted as they are a separate entity, though the developer is saying he will give Little League a teeny strip of land to help with the severe overcrowded parking conditions. The town of Leesburg is getting very little out of this deal, except for hundreds more homes and another thousand cars on Ft. Evans and surround roads. Good move on denying this turkey development! "

lsbgmom wrote on Nov 30, 2007 8:13 AM:

" so, this project keeps the ballfields in place -- improves roads and puts proffer money for schools in the County's hands -- they also told Potomac Station that they would fix our dead tree problem that our devloper left us with and it was denied? So, if we want the entire property for a park who is going to buy it and maintain it? "

Paul Martin wrote on Nov 30, 2007 7:50 AM:

" very house adds vehicles to roads, kids to the schools and more demands on Town and County services. These soon eat up all of any developer's "proffers" and ultimately foist the perpetual; fiscal solution on the taxpayers. Granted, any prospective new residents would also pay higher taxes (Welcome to Leesburg!) but study after study after study has shown that at the price range for this level, taxes alone do not nearly pay for service demands. How do we all think Loudoun finds itself where it is today? I have watched it unfold for 5 decades, always the same and always more taxes, insidiously growing far faster than inflation all while roads gridlock, schools overcrowd, crime rises and those "green spaces", well a few trees dropped on a noise berm do the trick for some I guess. Loudoun as a whole needs to take a step back , no make that a leap backward, catch our breath as the tourist slogan once decreed, and stop trying to be the "fastest growing" this or that and start being realistic. "

Dr. Science wrote on Nov 29, 2007 8:32 PM:

" Let's see if I have this right....the property was annexed into the Town in 2006, and then zoned for residential use. The landowner submits a project that COMPLIES with the Town Plan, and the Town turns it down?? I'm sure this Town action scares the pants off the landowners faced with pending annexation next year. Come on, Leesburg... y'all should be better than this. "

John Drury wrote on Nov 29, 2007 10:14 AM:

" A good decision, though not an easy one. This proposal highlights, yet again, how long-term plans on paper rarely work out the way people expect them to work. Decades ago, when there was no development, it was easy to designate various parcels of land for this or that use. But as the parcels filled up and plans modified, you got to see traffic congestion, schools filling up, lack of commercial development, etc. Those who hold the last empty parcel are usually going to be singled out for complaints, due to the problems created by all of the earlier developments. Meadowbrook was a similar situation. It's a lesson about what happens when places develop quickly, densities grow, and problems aren't fixed quickly. It's also a cautionary tale about annexation, and relations with the county. "

paperboy wrote on Nov 29, 2007 9:52 AM:

" Donuts are wonderful. A ring of homes with a big park in the center. Sounds perfect to me. Why do we have to keep stuffing homes onto every teeny piece of green? Leesburg is woefully short of ballfields of all types for our children. We can rectify that situation right here. Plus, why the heck are we letting a developer give money to a road (Riverside) that isn't even in Leesburg??? "



You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your member ID will be posted with the comments.

Registered users sign in here:

Become a Registered User

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
*Zip Code: