Latest News

Sham "Public" Meeting To Density Pack Sterling

August 11, 2016

Statement from Hon. Eugene Delgaudio, past Supervisor, Sterling District (2000-2015)

Please copy and paste into your address book and keep the above email addresses and write

Please write the board and the planning commission to reject this proposal
to density pack Sterling with new residential zoning that will turn
CURRENT commercial properties to be zoned residential.

This the subject heading and the title of your email:
Regarding: ZCPA 2015-0002, ZMOD 2015-0002, ZMOD 2015-0019, Sterling Plaza Shopping Center

I am writing the board of supervisors and the planning commission saying:

(Quote) I ask you, the Planning Commission and the Board of supervisors
to reject the proposal to density pack Sterling Plaza, the downtown shopping
center in the middle of Sterling with high density townhouses.

This conversion of a commercial space to residential use will result
in other conversions of commercial space in Sterling. Sterling is filled
with 7 shopping centers, and many commercial spaces in the nearby Route 606 and Route 28 corridors to our south and west which are currently vacant or being used for commercial purposes.

The county has already improved the applicants shopping center with a
20 year lease for a public library. This is already a significant
incentive to upgrade the property. To ask the county to take on
more residents, open up the Sterling community to a wave of density
packing and give the applicant $1 million "cash" on top of that is
absurd." (unquote)

Supervisor Saines Phoney Sham Meeting was Disaster

Here is a brief REPORT on the Recent communnity meeting. I clocked
26 minutes straight for the developer to present his proposal. In spite
of the promise to let everyone speak, my planning commissioner and I were
not allowed to speak in spite of being mentioned by several speakers and
questions directed to us by members of the community on both sides of
the issue.

There was a brief question and answer period in which only partial answers
and abbreviated statements were made by county staff.

In short the whole meeting was an injustice to all: government officials,
citizens, the applicant and county staff who were all cut off at 8:30 p.m.
to go to a "$300,000 bike path traffic improvement".

So a proposal to destroy the entire neighborhood fabric of Sterling since its founding was cut off after 34 minutes of public input.


This is the beginning of "redevelopment" which the current supervisor,
my former opponent, Koran Saines, embraces. He has plainly stated
he is "neutral" while pushing redevelopment as an option.

In my 16 years, I have favored "renewal" , "revitilization" or "renovation" but not
"redevelopment". This is because the development industry, some local
developers and county staff want to fit 20,000 to 40,000 new residents
into the Sterling area and Eastern Loudoun in general, including the bulldozing of old established neighborhoods.

I voted against re-development, and mixed use in the Sterling area all of my

16 years in public office. I voted against proposals and "plans" and "zoning concepts"

and all policies impacting Sterling to allow mixed use. This protected Sterling.

In 16 years, I feel that the agendas for the Board of supervisors are
accessable but even my own Planning Commissioner protested the lack
of public access Monday night at a community meeting of the
Planning Commission agenda.

This is the description of the planning commission today:

This is an archive of Board and Planning commmission meetings

This is the link to the meeting where Planning commission members
considered this proposal and there are various links to reports:

The 16 page Staff Report condemns the proposal. This is the link

Here are some reasons the county staff condemns the proposal:

(remember county staff FAVORS redevelopment of Sterling so this
is a recommendation for denial in spite of that bias).

...........(in part)

Planning and Zoning Department Staff cannot support a
Planning Commission recommendation of approval for the following reasons:
1. The proposed residential density exceeds the planned residential density for the area;
2. Insufficient open space is provided or available to serve the proposed residential units
3. Zoning Ordinance Modifications proposed by the applications do not meet the Zoning
Ordinance criteria for approval;
4. The proposal does not mitigate the capital impact of the proposed residential units per
the established County capital facility proffer policy;
5. Approval of the concept in its current form may hamper future efforts to redevelop the
entire site;
6. The introduction of high-density residential use at the property should studied in the
context of a larger revitalization plan for the entire Sterling Park Neighborhood Center.
............(in part)

As an exmple or expansion of "Capital impact" the applicant is asking for a nearly
$1 million credit for a 20 year lease. As supervisor, I asked staff to address
any and all considerations during negotiations and together with Chairman York,
these issues were discussed separate from any "rezoning" applications.

The county made adjustments during a year of negotiations and the 20 year lease
was signed. This was a public process with half a dozen public meetings.

The liberal county staff in the above cited report (repeat link here)

objects and rejects the "offer" to get nearly $1 million credit from the county for this fair
20 year lease where the county library will be located. (my comment: This is greed pure
and simple.)

From the county report:


Capital Impact. The proposal does not mitigate the capital impact of the
proposed residential units per the established County Capital Facilities Proffer
Policy. The anticipated capital facilities contribution for 26 multi-family units is
$662,045.54. The Applicant has requested the Board of Supervisors accept the
difference between market rent and the rent paid by the County for commercial space
leased to the Sterling Library over the 20 year lease term ($936,700.00) in-lieu of
paying the anticipated cash contribution. Loss of revenue based on lease terms
negotiated as part of a competitive bidding process does not constitute an in kind
capital facility (land or improvements) that can be accepted in-lieu of a cash
contribution per the Capital Facility Proffer policy. As the proposed units are not
anticipated by the current zoning of the property, the full contribution is necessary to
mitigate the impact of the units on existing County services.


My comment: this "contribution" even valued at $662,045.54 by the county staff is

far below the billions of dollars impact to the value of residential properties immediately

from the threat of density packing and destroying the established neighborhoods over

time in Sterling.

News Archives