Can zoning regulations be used to maintain or shape a neighborhood's character? Can they be used to prevent change? Or, as the old axiom states, is change "the only real constant in life" and land use?
That was the essence of an application that came before the Alexandria Planning Commission May 3. It was seeking approval for the subdivision of a large residential lot at 227 North Latham St.
But, it embroiled the commission in a debate over whether or not they had the legal authority to deny the request based on what the applicant proposed to place on the newly created lots: Two homes that would dwarf others in the immediate surroundings.
"This is a proposal for a subdivision. It has nothing to do with what goes on the lots," said Attorney M. Catharine Puskar in arguing the case for her client Barry E. Seymore. "We will have to come back with plot plans and approval for structure details."
Seymore acknowledged he had purchased the lot with the intention of building two large homes for speculation. The present lot is 18,801 square feet. The two new lots, if subdivided, would be 9,323 and 9,478 respectively.
Neighbors have objected to Seymore's application based on what they view as his intentions as "changing the character of the neighborhood" by subjecting it to what they called "Mansionization." A petition with 47 signatures in opposition was presented to the commission by Mary B. White a neighbor at 486 N. Latham St.
In a letter to Fogarty dated April 28 and in testimony before the commission, White stated, Seymore plans "to demolish the existing house, and put up two large homes valued at $1 million each. This looks to be Seminary Valley's first major exposure to the construction of 'McMansions'."
She was buttressed by several neighbors objecting to the large homes in a neighborhood primarily composed of single story and split level structures built in the '50s and '60s, according to planning and zoning staff. One of those neighbors, Steve Johnson, 327 N. Latham, supplied the commission with pictures looking from his home directly at the proposed subdivision site.
"This will detract from neighborhood property values. I do not believe that building more expensive, extra large homes in an area of smaller properties tends to increase the value of the area," he said.
Commissioner Donna Fossum asked Puskar "What can be built on these lots?" The answer was that that is determined by the set back of each house. The staff report, which recommended approval of the subdivision, noted, "The proposed lots will be consistent with other lots in the neighborhood in terms of lot area, width, and configuration."
Dunn, noting that he had visited the neighborhood to get a feel for its character, said, "This is going to significantly change the character of the neighborhood. I would be willing to approve the subdivision if the buildings stay within the character of the neighborhood."
He also said, if we approve this "it will encourage people to speculate and change neighborhoods drastically. This is not good for the city."
Fossum agreed, stating, "What kind of nightmare would we face if everybody did what the zoning allows?"
In making their recommendation for approval, staff had included in their conditions three which Puskar requested be deleted. They dealt with:
* Pitch of the roofs of the new home be "consistent with the character of the neighborhood."
* Material used for the exterior of the homes shall be masonry ... "to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Zoning."
* Each garage shall be set behind the main facade of the house.
THE COMMISSION SIDED with staff and denied the request to delete the three conditions. Their decision focused on the first two which went to the heart of the neighborhood character argument.
Dunn offered Puskar and Seymore several alternatives to a vote for denial. One of those was to take a deferral and work with staff and neighbors to reach an agreeable compromise, another was to downsize the proposed structures to be more neighborhood compatible.
Puskar, after conferring with Seymore, stated that they could not accept the alternatives because they were based on preserving the present neighborhood character. "There is no guarantee what this neighborhood will look like in five years," she said.
Dunn made a motion for denial with Commission Chairman Eric Wagner stating, "I will support this motion because no lot should be subdivided if it will harm the character of the neighborhood."
It passed on a 6-1 vote with Commissioner Jesse Jennings voting against.
Jennings based his opposition on possible legal action being brought by the applicant. He questioned the commission's authority to deny the subdivision request founded on the neighborhood character issue.
IN OTHER ACTION, the commission voted unanimously to deny an application from Fitzgerald Automall for an SUP to operate an automobile rental and leasing business at 408 E. Glebe Road and 3006 Jefferson Davis Highway. It was based on the staff analysis that "The automobile-oriented use is inappropriate at this location ... because the proposal is inconsistent with the approved plans and character of the planned redevelopment of the Route 1/Potomac Yard corridor."