Trees vs. Design Center

Dear Fellow Broadlands Residents:

We would like to call your attention to a plan by Van Metre’s to destroy substantial part of the existing wooded area across the street and diagonal from the Southern Walk pool and Broadlands Market Place, behind the townhouses near Wynridge Drive and Avonworth. The Van Metre plan calls for rezoning the land in order to build a two-story office building with 79 surface parking spaces for a new design center. If this goes as planned, hundreds of mature trees, a creek and the wildlife living in that area (turtles, bullfrogs, butterflies, birds, squirrels, among others) will lose their natural habitat and may even be killed.

Despite a vast area that has already been cleared and zoned commercial directly across for Broadlands Market Place, Van Metre now wants to cut more trees and move closer to the homes of residents that paid a lot premium for the right to have a wooded area behind them. While Van Metre’s plan is to leave a narrow strip of trees behind the townhouses, the aesthetic and environmental consequences to this area will be disastrous. Moreover, destroying the trees and placing a commercial building so close to the townhouses will further decrease the property values in an already devalued property market.

If you want to prevent the unnecessary deforestation of this area because it affects you directly or because you care about preserving one of the few wooded areas left in our community, please join us in this effort. We would like to begin collecting signatures for a petition to stop this project and present it to Broadlands Homeowners Association (hopefully in time for the next meeting on April 8th, 2008, starting at 5:30 p.m.).

For more information about this initiative or to indicate how you can help this effort please email us at: savethetreesinbroadlands@gmail.com


Thank you,

Broadlands Residents that Care-Save the Trees

 

I hope to see more residents to offer their support to avoid this from happening. We will be better focused if we choose to "support" or not without comparisons or trying to bring in other issues.

This location is clearly will put commercial property in the backyards of peoples homes. Is there a shortage of commercial space????

 

I wish you guys would have called for support when they were tearing down trees behind our homes here in QP! Originally it was supposed to be 100 ft of tree buffer from our side (Quail Pond) and 100 ft of tree buffer from the Broadlands side. Somehow, Broadlands/VM applied for and got approval to get rid of their 100 ft. buffer, which left us non-Broadlands residents without the 200ft of trees that were suppose to remain when we purchased our homes.

 

I am a little confused by the first post, because as I read the sentences and paragraphs, it is hard to tell if your thread title fairly matches the information you present - maybe you are trying to appeal to several interests? The idea of losing trees is one thing, but there are more issues at work here, and I think the trees is actually one of the secondary issues you are using as your tag line to attract attention for what is probably a different motivation.

I live somewhat near there and would agree with all the other points you mention and I would think that better success would be achieved when focusing on the damage to property values and overall land impact.

But - if memory serves me correct, this area has been (at least for 3-5 years) identified for such a use and was generally known as public information. I have heard about this building several times over the years and I believe it was identified as such on the property maps in the Van Metre offices...but I could be wrong.

Unless you can show that Van Metre is doing something that contradicts something in writing... seems like an uphill battle. Can a petition really do anything? Is there something else that could be done?

I am pushing back on you because I think this is an important issue and am partly suggesting that you drop the focus on the trees because you are not going to get the right kind of results if this is your main concern. There are thousands of trees that have just been lost, less than a 1/2 mile walk from your house - where was your outrage then? (that was rhetorical and met as helpful).

 

That comment does not seem the least bit helpful (IMO). You have to start somewhere, right? Suppose this person posted in outrage over the "thousands of trees. . . 1/2 mile walk from [his] house" that you speak of. You could make the same argument, correct? I am sure there are lost trees within a 1/2 mile of those trees...and so on. Perhaps this was his/her best opportunity to take a stand.

 

my original concern was that the thread title does not fully and fairly represent all the issues being raised by the concerns expressed in the actual thread. It is fairly easy to poke holes in the sole argument that they are outraged about the loss of trees.

If the original poster is really and truly most outraged by the trees - that is fine but I think the ability to make a complaint and get results with this as the main concern will quickly fall on deaf ears - it is a bad strategy. You are much more likely to complain about trees that are closer to your back-yard then you are about ones that are 1/2 a mile away, that seems obvious and logical.

But again, I think the focus of losing trees will get you nowhere...just trying a couple of different angles.

 

I don’t think we should spend time questioning someone’s motives for wanting to keep trees in their backyard instead of having a two-story commercial building. With that said, consider the fact that in December of 2007, just 4 months ago, Van Metre applied for a “boundary line adjustment” that appears to be locating the proposed building closer to the townhouses than was previously disclosed to residents. For your convenience, I’ve pasted below the application information I was able to obtain from the LoudounCounty government website. Also, you’ll notice in the application that current zoning for this area is listed as “PDH4.” I believe that the “PDH” part of the zoning designation “PDH4” stands for “Planned Development-Housing,” which, of course is different from commercial.


LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AS OF: 12/29/07
PERIOD: 2007-12-01 - 2007-12-31
DULLES

APPLICATION NUMBER: BLAD-2007-0070

APPLICATION NAME: BROADLANDS SOUTH S 208

APPLICANT NAME: BROADLANDS COMMERCIAL DEV. FLEURY, TOM, SR., VP

PROJECT MANAGER: BOONE BRIAN

PROJECT LOCATION: WYNRIDGE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET EAST OF CLAIBOURNE PARKWAY.

PROJECT PROPOSAL: REQUEST APPROVAL OF A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 26,380
SQUARE FEET TWO STORY OFFICE USE AND NEW HOME DESIGN CENTER WITH 79 (SEVENTY-NINE) SURFACE PARKING SPACES.

EXISTING ZONING: PDH4

TAX MAP /78/A47//BLK1/ /78/A47//BLK2/

 

Here's the siteplan, for what it's worth.

 

FWIW--that site plan also shows the trees that they were supposed to leave behind us as well ;-)

 

I think you would have gotten a better response from me, and I am just talking about myself as a concerned neighbor, if you had taken the path of the second post. I do not buy the argument of wanting to save the trees, old growth or small creatures.

I do believe that the better, and more appropriate argument is the one about impact that the change would have on the adjacent properties, similar to what quailpond has mentioned. BUT, the fact that additional trees may get destroyed will not work as an argument because as far as I can tell, Van Metre is not required to maintain trees there in the first place.

I like the idea of the petition and would be glad to sign it. If they are moving the structure closer to the houses - that stinks. And I would begin doing whatever we can to find out why... perhaps we can also request that at the meeting as well, get something documented.

 

Does anyone even know how far they're extending the boundary?

 

So what is going to be built between Glebe View and Belmont Ridge? There is some open space there just begging to be developed into a homeless shelter, hospital, flex space, office building, Starbucks, or Harris Teeter.

 

A few points.
The property in question is, and has always, been zoned for commercial development/office. I have maps from 1999 that show that. The office buildings are by-right and require no rezoning.
The only outstanding question is what the request for the 79 foot boundary line adjustment refers to. The county project manager and case number are listed on the request, so it should be fairly easy to find out. If the boundary line was moved closer to the homes, then there may still be the possibility of providing input to the county.
I will also point out that this property is not under the control of the HOA in any way.

Since Van Metre still has 5 of the 9 seats on the HOA Board, residents are welcome to come to the HOA meeting and speak their piece. Van Metre will hear the message.

 

Despite the “it’s been zoned commercial forever” statements some folks have posted, the bottom line is Van Metre submitted an application to the County in December 2007 because they want to change something and they need the County’s approval to do it. We have the right to know what that change is and how it will affect our property, as well as the environment.

I certainly hope that our HOA can provide some answers at the next meeting. In the meantime, residents who want to know more should contact the Loudoun County Department of Building and Development at 703-777-0397 or email them at bad@loudoun.gov.

 

Van Metre is aware of this issue, and hopefully they will provide answers as to the boundary adjustment to any resident that attends the HOA meeting.
Southern Walk Hokie-
Since you have the county application, it might have been helpful if you made a call to inquire about this with the county and post the response.

 

Thanks, Cliff. I have called and left messages twice for the project manager (Brian Boone). Still no response yet. I will be sure to post whatever information I'm able to obtain from the County.

 

Here is information I receivd from Van Metre:

Broadlands Residents: Broadlands Associates would like to take the opportunity to make sure that each resident has the best information regarding the development and zoning issues that are surrounding the Section 208 property located on Wynridge.

Section 208 was approved by the Loudoun Board of Supervisors for office when the original Broadlands South community was approved in 1994. The Preliminary Plat for Sections 200, 202, 204, 206 and 208 was submitted to Loudoun County by Broadlands Associates back in 2002. The plat was processed and approved by Loudoun County under SBPL 2002-0035 on June 12, 2003. The Section 208 commercial site was approved as a 15.31 acre site with a land use of Office, Church, Daycare Uses.

The Preliminary Plat shows the closest townhouse is 50’ from the property line. There is also a 50’ buffer along the western property line of 208. Therefore, there will be a minimum of 100’ between the townhomes and any parking area or structure.

There is a Boundary Line Adjustment for Section 208 that is moving an internal division line, but there are no changes to the perimeter boundary of the section or the adjoining townhome section.

Attached is the Terrabrook/Van Metre Marketing Map dated February, 1999 showing Section 208 as Commercial. Van Metre will be happy to review this material with the Broadlands HOA board members at the next board meeting.

 

Cliff
Can you attach the map they sent you.

Staci

 

Don't know how, but I forwarded the message to you!