main banner

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

FXCO Planning Commission to vote on Peace Valley Lane development

After the Ravenwood Park Citizens Association (RPCA) has spent many, many months fighting plans for an overly dense development at Peace Valley Lane, the issue is coming before the Fairfax County Planning Commission tonight as a “decision item.”

At issue is an amendment to the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan as the first step in rezoning a 1.89-acre property to permit up to eight houses in the midst of an established neighborhood.

The overwhelming majority of Ravenwood Park residents (99 percent) oppose the amendment, states a letter sent to the members of the Planning Commission April 16 by RPCA co-presidents Carol Turner and John Iekel; other RCPA officers; and Kate Sriwardene, land use chair of the Mason District Council.

“We are not opposed to development of this property,” the letter states. “However, we are opposed to irresponsible overdevelopment that this plan amendment opens the door for if passed. We are opposed to any further zoning changes that would allow for the degradation of our quality of life. If the property is developed at the current R-3 zoning, that would be a 500 percent  increase. Why is that not enough?”

The Ravenwood Park community believes the only reason for the Plan Amendment is to smooth the way for the developer, the Concordia Group, to push for an out-of-turn rezoning application—and bypass the county’s Area Plan Review (APR) system for addressing requested land use changes.

“This is very disturbing, because every other developer in Fairfax County is required to follow the APR schedule; instead this developer gets his own Plan Amendment,” the letter states.

The Concordia Group’s website has already posted a description of the proposed project, “Peace Valley Estates,” as if it were a done deal and says construction will start in 2012.

The neighborhood leaders urge the commission to oppose the amendment, noting that the Comprehensive Plan is “the county’s instrument put in place to protect communities.”

The Planning Committee is expected to approve the amendment without much debate. The final decision will be made by the Board of Supervisors.


  1. Does anyone else think it is ridiculous that a parcel of land that is less than a quarter of an acre (1.89 acres divided by 8 homes) can be called an "estate"?

  2. Does anyone have a problem with the fact that Commissioner Hall changed the amendment four hours prior to the meeting and sent it out 30 minutes before her office closed so that she could not be reached?

  3. ha YES I do. Interesting. Cant wait to hear what happened.

  4. It should be noted that Commissioner Halls changes provided additional limiting conditions on the development. Conditions requested by many of the homeowners that share a property line with the development.