On Tuesday, February 25, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve the Oakcrest SEA. We thank two of our four Hunter Mill Road Supervisors, Supervisor Foust (Dranesville) and Supervisor Smyth (Providence) for standing behind the reasoning of the original SE. Their principled support for the only solution that had consensus means a great deal to those us who call this part of the county home.
In the SEA, only one of the community concerns was effectively addressed; the rest were judged non-substantive or to have been mitigated by lesser means than sought. All of the features that allowed for community support of the SE approved in 2010 have been stripped away. Nothing stands in the way of the eventual removal of all berms, to be replaced by vastly inferior transitional screening. A massive increase in rush hour traffic on Crowell Road is certain.
In the end, all efforts to find solutions by working with the School, the County Staff, and the Supervisor’s office were fruitless. Without the leadership of the Supervisor, one landowner – who was not the applicant – was behind the scenes making all the critical transportation configuration decisions that will affect the entire community. He did so by means of a lawsuit challenging the original approval of the 2010 SE (which he previously publicly testified that he supported), by pushing self-serving provisions of his ‘Cooperative Development Agreement’ with the School and ignoring his commitment to provide an easement to the School for Hunter Mill Road access. In fact, he was able to do all this with knowledge that the School would not enforce its contract rights and that County Attorney would not enforce the express requirements of the 2010 SE where right-of-way could not be obtained voluntarily for the roundabout. It appears to us that no one else’s opinion materially affected outcome and no one else’s vision for the community mattered.
We believe no weight was given to the very land use protections safeguarded in the 2010 SE and eliminated in this ‘amendment’ that was just approved. As a community we are at loss to explain the meaning of the Comprehensive Plan language and the ordinances governing Special Exceptions as they allegedly were applied here. Our enduring impression is that both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have spoken out of both sides of their mouths in this case. They have approved that which was previously rejected and rejected that which was formerly approved. Can there be any wonder at the immense frustration in the community with the actions of its County government?