The Crow’s Nest zoning of 1971 is an issue the high court has decided not to consider.

By MEGHANN COTTER
The Free Lance-Star

Date published: 1/4/2006

A Virginia Supreme Court panel rejected a McLean developer’s request to uphold a 1971 residential zoning designation for the 4,000-acre environmentally sensitive Crow’s Nest peninsula.

K&M Properties believes it is entitled to the earlier classification, which allows more homes per lot than the current rural rules, because a previous owner recorded final plats for the property several years before the county downzoned it.

The Board of Zoning Appeals and the Stafford County Circuit Court have both said too much time has passed to honor the previous zoning. But K&M’s attorney, Clark Leming, said the documents on file should retain development rights for the property, no matter how many years elapse.

“Vesting is something that, like a covenant, runs with the property,” he said.

Leming said he will appeal the panel’s decision to the full Virginia Supreme Court by Jan. 11. And his client will continue to pursue other development approvals.

K&M has already filed a preliminary subdivision plan for the 3,230 acres not included in the current litigation. They have asked for 688 homes, which is allowed under by-right law.

The plans filed by a previous owner more than 30 years ago dealt with a small section of the tract, now known as Crow’s Nest Harbour. It included 8,000 homes, two golf courses, four marinas, an airport, a convention center, a commercial area and schools. Those hopes were never realized because the original company went bankrupt.

But if the Virginia Supreme Court were to rule in the company’s favor, it could be allowed to build many more units per acre on the entire Crow’s Nest peninsula, Leming said.

K&M, however, wouldn’t necessarily use all of the added land for more homes.

“Even if 1971 density were reinstated that, in and of it self, does not mean the property would be developed in that fashion or would be developed at all. It just comes down to what legal rights they have to that property,” Leming said.

In addition to the Virginia Supreme Court setbacks last week, the preliminary subdivision plan has met its share of squabbles, as well.

Date published: 1/4/2006