Hicks Farm development proposal gets controversial

I am extremely concerned with the requested rezoning of the Hicks Farm in anticipation of the summerfield development. This will provide more high density housing in an already saturated market. The proposed neighborhood of 200 homes (primarily townhomes with some single family homes on extremely small lots) will impact the property values of the neighboring properties. There are huge concerns about the impact upon an already crowded school system which has significant budget constraints. Traffic will become much worse along Rt 1 – which already backs up quite a bit during the afternoon. If you add another 200 homes which must use Rt 1 imagine the impact.

Thanks for giving this some visibility because this development will impact all residents of Fredericksburg and Spotslyvania in some way.

I appreciate your interest in this story. While I respect the property owner’s rights to develop his property in accordance with the law, I don’t think the proposed development is a good fit for the area. The project fails on two key points. First, I don’t think it complies with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, and second, I don’t think it complies, as currently proposed, with the County’s own code. Here are a few key points.

The County Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use identifies the property to be “Mixed Use”. In terms of development, this means a “Traditional Development Neighborhood”. The comprehensive plan describes this as having three use components (commercial retail, office, and residential) with a minimum of 5 acres to commercial retail. The proposed development only has residential (single family attached and detached). These mixed use communities are supposed to be areas where residents can live, work, play, and shop. Also, the comprehensive plan calls for development in the Primary Settlement District to be “self-sufficient”. I don’t see how the proposed development is anything but high density residential as proposed and is simply using the PDH-4 zoning district as a way to do more of what it wants without the restrictions typically associated with a high density residential zoning district (such as transitional landscape screening). In the end, I think the development as proposed misses the mark of what a mixed use development intends to accomplish. The proposed development does not provide a self-sufficient place to live, work, play, and shop. It also does not accomplish another goal of mixed use development which is to transition from low-density residential to commercial uses. With the high-density residential zoning district protections removed by seeking a rezoning to PDH-4, the transition is very abrupt from low-density residential to high-density residential to commercial. This is not a good implemention of a mixed use development.

Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that the proposed project relies on the City down zoning a significant portion of the project. Does it really make sense to ask the City to down zone property along US Route 1 from Commercial Highway (the most intense commercial zoning district) for a residentail attached use? Not to mention all of the questions about what the proposed development will look like if the City decides not to approve a rezoning? Do the amenities for the project get relocated or do the new residents simply go without?

Finally, I don’t think the proposed development does anything to protect the neighborhood character established by the existing subdivisions as required by the Comprehensive Plan and County Code. No landscape screening is proposed to provide a buffer between Kingswood Subdivision and Summerfield. The code doesn’t require it according to the PDH zoning district. However, if the property were developed to the same intensity under convential zoning districts, it would have to be rezoned at least R-8 (single family attached). Under the R-8 zoning district, a transitional landscape screening buffer is required. This all leads to one conclusion for me, when given the chance to offer more than the bare minimum, the applicant chose not to make an attempt. The proof positive is that no landscaping was proposed, no berming was proposed, no fence was proposed. Instead, the applicant proposed a multi-use trail to encourage pedestrian traffic adjacent to the neighboring subdivision’s rear yards.

More to come. Let’s hope tonight’s meeting witht the developer turns some corners. I hope he comes to listen. There are a myriad of development possibilities for the property, this just happens to be the worst one.