Arlington — Most of the Reevesland property will still belong to the county as an open park. The 2.5 acres of county historical district around Arlington’s last working farm will remain as a city park, including the gardens and the hill for children to sled on. But there’s one important piece missing from the idyllic scene: Reevesland itself.
Following the Planning Commission’s approval on Sept. 9, and pending County Board approval, the Reeves farmhouse will be divided into a residential parcel separate from the rest of the county. The commission voted in favor of a permit for a Unified Residential Development (URD) that will allow the county to market the house for sale to a buyer willing to maintain and restore it.
The commission approved the URD as one option in the continuing effort to decide what to do with Arlington’s last dairy farm. Members of the commission still expressed hope that the county can work out a public private partnership to maintain the building for another use, but the URD allows the home to become a private residence if those aspirations fall through.
The URD does come with a share of stipulations for the potential owners. According to the staff report, all changes to the exterior of the building will require approval by the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board. There is also a local ordinance that makes it possible to demolish the building in extremely limited circumstances, though no property within the historic district has ever been demolished using this provision. Not protected under the local ordinance, though, is a non-historic garage on the site that is being torn down to create better access to the historic milkshed.
Neighbors and members of the Reevesland Learning Center, an education program at the site that teaches about local history and agriculture, spoke in an impassioned defense of restoring the farmhouse as county property. Sandra Kalscheur, chair of the Reevesland Learning Center, said the group had procedural and ethical concerns about the decision regarding Reevesland. Kalscheur expressed concerns about an allowance for expansion of the farmhouse property. In a document submitted to the Planning Commission by Commission member Nancy Iacomini, the land allows for a “modest expansion of the house or the addition of a free-standing garage.”
“I hope some other path will come along to be able to preserve Reevesland.”
— Rosemary Ciotti, member, Planning Commission
But more at the heart of the issue, Kalscheur was disturbed that the URD approval means that the farmhouse could not be used for anything other than a single-family home.
“From a planning perspective, the placement of a privately owned single-family structure within Bluemont Park simply does not make sense,” said Kalscheur. “The park is a county resource, and should be wholly owned and maintained by the county.”
Zoned as single-family residential, there are few options for the site other than as a residence. According to the staff report, the zoning would allow for the building to be used as a home daycare, but the URD would not allow the site to be used as a museum or art gallery.
Members of the commission noted that, just because a URD was approved doesn’t mean that it will be used. Approval makes single-family residence possible, not inevitable.
“I am in no way suggesting we had the appropriate public process getting here,” said Commission member Erik Gutshall, “but for the future of Reevesland, the URD is useful in providing one option.”
Given the volume of public speakers defending the farmhouse, many of whom stayed even after the discussion on the previous docket item went over an hour longer past the commission said it would, some on the commission expressed serious doubts about the process behind the decision.
“I am troubled by the process that led us here,” said Commission member James Schroll. “There has not been very much public outreach, and I can’t support this item.”
Even among those who voted in favor of the URD, it was a decision made with some reluctance.
“I am very torn,” said Commission member Rosemary Ciotti. “This is a discussion that is being clouded by emotions surrounding the URD. I hope some other path will come along to be able to preserve Reevesland.”
However, with a vote of six in favor, three against, and one abstention, the URD approval moves forward to the County Board for approval at its Sept. 19 meeting.