52°Partly Cloudy

Reston Will Have Another Chance to Speak Out About Proposed PRC Zoning Amendment

by Dave Emke July 13, 2017 at 1:30 pm 9 Comments

Three meetings in May to discuss a proposed zoning ordinance amendment for Reston’s Planned Residential Community district did not satisfy residents upset about the plan.

A fourth meeting, though, is on the horizon.

Fairfax County Supervisor Cathy Hudgins has announced that the county Department of Planning and Zoning will hold another public meeting on the proposal. A tentative date of Sept. 25 was reported.

The proposal from the county DPZ would increase the limit on people per acre in Reston’s PRC District from 13 to 16. This would allow for 18,737 more people beyond the current cap in Reston over time. Reston’s PRC District is currently at about 11.9 persons per acre. The amendment would also allow for the Board of Supervisors to be able to approve individual developments in excess of 50 dwelling units per acre in Transit Station Areas within the PRC and when in accordance with Comprehensive Plan recommendations.

The PRC District does not include any of the TSA property surrounding the Wiehle-Reston East and Herndon Metro stations, nor does it include most of the property in the Reston Town Center Metro station TSA south of the Dulles Toll Road. This was pointed out by several individuals who spoke during May meetings, saying that this means the population and density estimates provided for the PRC District would in reality be much higher in Reston as a whole.

Restonians who attended the May meetings expressed their concern that the county was trying to rush the amendment through the approval process. They were especially upset when the third meeting was held in an open-house format rather than as a question-and-answer session.

“The County and the community need to understand the implications for Reston of the zoning ordinance amendment and quite possibly amend it so that it is consistent with Reston’s vision and planning principles,” said Terry Maynard, co-chair of the Reston 20/20 committee and an outspoken opponent of the proposal, at one of the meetings. “This will take time, not the headlong rush the County and Board [of Supervisors] seem to be in to get this amendment passed with three public meetings in three weeks [in May].”

The Reston Association Board of Directors adopted a resolution at its May meeting asking the County to give more time and consideration to the community’s voice.

The original plan for the DPZ was to bring the plan before the Board of Supervisors this month, followed by a Planning Commission public hearing in September and the Board public hearing in October. It now has those dates pushed back to November, December and January, respectively.

Map courtesy Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning

  • Hope

    Where is Hudgins on this proposal? The more the merrier? Or is she standing up for Reston?

    • Conservative Senior

      Only worried about herself!

    • 40yearsinreston

      she only stands in line for developer contributions

  • Hope

    Where is Hudgins on this proposal? The more the merrier? Or will she stand up for Reston?

    • Greg

      Three guesses — and follow the money!

    • 40yearsinreston

      Hudgins is busy on her hard earned vacation

  • Umust B Kidding

    Another public meeting without the County having conducted impact analyses of the addition of 88,000 people to Reston and another 60,000 jobs over the next four decades will be worthless. And it hasn’t started, doesn’t intend to, and couldn’t complete that work by September if it wanted to. And who would be believe the results the consultants they paid would present?

  • Jenny G.

    Terry M explicitly stated he is not against development and now he is! Whatever.

    Unless at least 1000 people show for this event the county will proceed as planned.

    If you’re retired and getting sick of the area perhaps move. Real estate prices are topping out.

    • Terry Maynard

      I am not opposed to SMART development, even high-density development around the Reston Metro stations. SMART development includes, at its most basic level, only a reasonable amount of such development (not “unlimited” ceilings) AND the simultaneous inclusion of all infrastructure and amenities as laid out in (a) County policies (eg–urban parks framework) and (b) Reston’s planning principles.

      For more on this, please see the following Reston 20/20 papers:

      –Planning without Implementation is Empty–http://www.scribd.com/doc/32715498/Planning-Without-Implementation-is-Empty-Implementation-Work-Group-RCA-Reston-2020-Committee-May-27-2010

      –Reston TOD Planning: More Balance, Less Density Needed–https://www.scribd.com/document/74223208/Reston-TOD-Planning-More-Balance-Less-Density-Final-071811

      –Report Card on Draft Reston Master Plan–http://www.scribd.com/doc/179863527/Reston-2020-Report-Card-on-the-Draft-Reston-Master-Plan-Version-10

      I know that this is not as simple minded as you would like to make it, but there it is.


Subscribe to our mailing list