What does a community mean to Fairfax County?
Answer: Depends whether that community is Gum Springs.
Fairfax County Department of Redevelopment & Housing Authority (Authority/RHA) and Fairfax County Department of Planning & Zoning (DPZ) have purposefully not spoken to Gum Springs for more than two years through no fault of Gum Springs. It appears the exclusion is an orchestrated effort to “reshape” and bypass Gum Springs by silencing the voice of Gum Springs leadership.
During the past three years, more than one project was implemented without any consideration to the quality of life for Gum Springs residents. The Gum Springs Conservation Plan and the Gum Springs Redevelopment Plan are two major guiding policy documents that provides Gum Springs a certain level of engagement and protection from adverse impacts. However, those documents are being ignored by the county.
The latest exclusion by the county is a special exception application that requires a rezoning of residential property to commercial. Although the county met with the applicant and owner during the review process, the county excluded Gum Springs. Such action by the county violated more than one established requirement in the Gum Springs Redevelopment Plan. For example, Section VII.B (Regulations and Standards for Development Review) states in part that the “Authority will also coordinate all such reviews with the Gum Springs community.”
By not being afforded the opportunity to participate in the required review process, Gum Springs questioned the land use requirement as stated in Section VI.B (Land Use Provisions) which states in part that “residential development shall comprise no less than 70 percent of the land use.” Gum Springs asked the county (1) What is the current residential percentage; (2) How will a rezoning of lot 79A from residential to commercial achieve the required land percentage; and (3) what effect will a waiver of lot size affect the residential land percentage?
The county responded in part via email that “In consultation with the county attorney’s office, as well as Supervisor Storck’s office, it has been decided that community outreach would be best accomplished by individual property mailings. This outreach is above and beyond what would be done for a typical zoning case. Your comments will be taken into consideration as part of the staff report preparation. Furthermore, you will have an opportunity to address the Planning Commission and Board with outstanding concerns at the upcoming public hearings.”
Such a response from the county generated additional questions from Gum Springs to include: (1) Should not these concerns be addressed prior to any public hearings; (2) How can individual property mailings by the county be considered as meeting the community review requirement since the mailing is a one-way communication tool for the county; (3) If the county considers individual property mailings as service above and beyond and refusal to answer community questions based on policy that conflicts with county actions, what does the county consider mediocre service; (4) How can the county view such mailings as community outreach particularly when the mailings were used as a “workaround” to not address community questions and concerns; and (5) Why is RHA and DPZ allowed to circumvent established policies approved by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors?
Queenie Cox
President, New Gum Springs Civic Association