|
|
||
K&M Properties contests Stafford Planning Commission's rejection of its subdivision plan. Date published: 2/3/2006 By MEGHANN COTTER By MEGHANN COTTER K&M Properties' subdivision plan for Crow's Nest may have been declared dead on arrival, but the McLean developer's attorney hopes legal resuscitation will bring it back to life. Clark Leming, who represents K&M, is questioning the time allowed for review of the plan and the method used by the Planning Commission last week to deny his client's proposal. K&M's grievances, filed with the county and the Circuit Court, are the latest maneuvers in the battle for the future of the environmentally sensitive peninsula. K&M, developing Crow's Nest as Stafford Lakes Limited Partnership, has proposed 688 homes on 3,230 acres between Potomac and Accokeek creeks. The Stafford Planning Department had said in writing on two occasions that the plan met code requirements, and its staff recommended approval. But on the night the Planning Commission was scheduled to hear the issue, the agency delivered a new memo saying the plan was not up to code and the staff had changed its prior stance. County officials say that the deficiencies were revealed in a subsequent check of the developer's proposal. "Sometimes that does happen," said County Attorney Joe Howard. "This is certainly not the only time that's happened, where staff has changed its recommendation when some additional facts have come to light." But Leming argues the inconsistency is unfair to his client and out of sync with procedure. Commissioners sought legal advice about the application in closed session during their Jan. 25 meeting. And before their vote, they read a prepared statement indicating their reasons for denying the plan. They didn't give the applicant a chance to respond to the memo during the commission's meeting. Leming said applicants usually have a chance to comment. "We were prepared to say what the problem was with every one of the things they had listed," Leming said. "We think everything raised is very, very technical in nature." That's why he has fired off a swift appeal of the commission's decision. "We aren't making any substantive revisions to the plan or proposing any," he said. But there is some argument as to who should review that claim. State law says the appeal goes to the Circuit Court. County code sends it to the Board of Supervisors.
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
||||||||||||
