As the property owner of 809 and 811 Vassar Road, the sub-dividable lots mentioned in several letters last week, I feel like it is important to correct the record.
1) Neighbors have said that this subdivision would "open all of our quiet, stable, historic neighborhood up to future subdivisions and development." This is patently untrue. In fact, if you listen to the Planning Commission meeting where our subdivision was approved you can see Commissioner Brown address this very topic. He stated that he had looked at this neighborhood and there is no other lot large enough to subdivide besides ours and the neighbors' lot directly across the street from us. Since they would have to tear down their house to do it, it seems highly unlikely. This is not a fragile neighborhood, nor a historic one. And this subdivision is not going to suddenly start a rash of new development here or in the city at large. No one is going to be "carving up" our neighborhood in the future or carving up other neighborhoods because subdivisions can only happen as they are in line with the laws that govern the city.
2) Neighbors have said that our subdivision "means the creation of a new smallest lot." So that the facts are clear: a lot in an R-8 zone (the zoning for Clover/College Park) by law requires 8000 SF, 40 feet of frontage, and 65 feet of building width. The new lot that we proposed and that has been approved is 9452 sq ft, has 55 ft of frontage and 67 ft of building width. It is larger than almost every other lot on the same side of the street all the way down Vassar until you hit Dartmouth Road and it is larger than a majority of lots in this neighborhood (the average lots are in the 8000-9000 sq ft range). Calling this the smallest lot in the neighborhood is also simply untrue. And since the zoning requirements are set by law, no one in the neighborhood can suddenly decide they want to make two 4000 sq ft lots out of their existing 8000 sq ft lot and increase the density of the neighborhood.
3) Some of the discontent we've heard about stems from the possibility of water run-off problems. The city tightly controls water run-off for new construction. If/when a new house ever goes up on the new lot, the city has extremely strict regulations to make sure that water run-off is not a problem for the surrounding neighbors. In fact, the guidelines are so strict, that it is very likely that run-off will actually have less of an impact on surrounding properties, than it does currently.
4) Some have said we said we would build a "behemoth" house on the new lot. We did not ever say that and it is, in fact, not possible to do so. Only a modest home can be built on the new lot — a home similar in size and scale to most of the homes in the neighborhood. The only lot that could have a behemoth house built on it is 809 as it exists right now. Our subdivision is actually a net positive for the neighborhood, because the newly created lots are all smaller than the existing two lots. This guarantees that any future development is fitting and proper for our neighborhood, because home size is directly correlated to lot size in our city. 809 as it sits today is a developer's dream lot because it is so large. I have already been approached by multiple builders about purchasing 809 Vassar Road and it is not even for sale. Potentially a house of 7000 to 8000 square feet could go there. That would most definitely not fit in with the character of our neighborhood. But the new owner could do this "by right," without any input from the city, you or me. Again, our subdivision prevents this from ever happening, creating the potential for two modest homes instead of one large out of character home.
5) One of the letters attacked the way the city staff determined comparable lots. I think an unbiased third party determining comparable lots is much more trustworthy than say neighbors who are opposed to the new subdivision. And Commission Koenig, another unbiased third party, supported this point at the Planning Commission saying he thought the city chose the correct lots for comparison.
In conclusion, our subdivision fulfills all of the city requirements for subdivision easily and without exception and has been supported by both the city staff and the Planning Commission. If you don't like our plan, then we respect your opinion and your right to not support it, but please only oppose the subdivision with all the facts on the table, minus the fear mongering and misinformation. We hope you will support our subdivision by writing to the City Council and/or coming to the council hearing this Saturday at 930 a.m. at City Hall.
Steve and Mary Hales
Alexandria