THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 5, 1995 TAG: 9501040136
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 58 lines
The recent decision by City Council to deny the Hoffler family a conditional-use permit to build a 20-unit, multifamily housing development on property that was already zoned by a unanimous vote by council for that use in September 1984 illustrates the shortcomings of our local planning process.
True, trying to shoe-horn 20 units on 1.2 acres of that location (White Marsh Road and Locust Street) is too intense. Council said so, and I agree.
Our zoning ordinance requires that all requests for multifamily development receive approval for a conditional-use permit even though the property is properly zoned for the requested purpose. This permit simply means that the applicant may proffer conditions on the development. Likewise, council may place reasonable conditions on the proposed development - i.e., design, type of construction, streets, etc. Council did none of this. Some members simply stated they didn't want ``this type of housing'' now or ever!
To make their objections legal and avoid a court challenge, they passed a catch-all resolution detailing their objections, stating, ``adverse effect on the health, safety and comfort of persons living, working or driving through the neighborhood.'' In another section, it states, ``taking into consideration traffic congestion, noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibrations and times of operation.'' A home having times of operation? Rubbish! These are conditions that might be placed on the proposed auto race track, not housing! The departments of public works, utilities, police and fire all gave their approval to the project.
The process is broke and needs fixing.
Background: This property was zoned for multifamily in 1984. Councilman Milteer voted in favor in a unanimous vote. Two years later, Dr. Hoffler requested a conditional-use permit for 18 townhomes. Councilman Milteer made the motion to approve. Again the council vote was unanimous.
This time, Milteer made a motion to deny.
Is the situation much different today from 1986? Not much - only that a new housing subdivision is being developed adjacent to the multifamily development, and the new homeowners don't like it. Remember, the Hoffler property was zoned prior to the new development.
Alternative? Yes. Council should have tabled their decisions for 30 days, suggesting to the applicant the possibility of downsizing the development and requesting that the applicant meet with the concerned neighborhood homeowners for a resolution of their concerns. Council has used this technique successfully in the past. As it now stands, the applicant must wait 12 months to reapply.
Solution? Yes. By motion, council could vote to reconsider. A public hearing is required to reconsider a past decision no later than 30 days.
I hope council would do just that.
Andy Damiani
Suffolk by CNB