Berry Street Legal Justification

Thanks for posting this. It shows exactly what Bukont is. The dual rezoning submittal... linkage where no linkage should exist... along with the blatant threats outlining all the bad, undesirable things he will do if he doesn't get his way, shows him for the characterless creep he is. And he demands twice the legal lot coverage allowed by RM-2 so he can build 22 units with difficult parking for just 44 cars in a freaking basement. Imagine coming home everyday and trying to find your open space underground. And where will your guests park? Go visit Bukont's underground closet parking garage on Church Street if you want to feel what that will be like. And don't expect affordable... Bukont does not build affordable housing. Virgina may be mandating affordable housing but it ain't being built anywhere near here, that's for sure.

Tell him to go poke off! He'll never get approval for T-zoning, so let him build two big stupid houses and try to find some buyer in today's market willing to live on the edge and pay to maintain a big stupid house. And let him build out the old 7-11 C-1 lot. He'll just be pissing on his own neighbors and customers. Bring it on, Bukont... throw another temper tantrum in public for all to see... your move big boy!

Touche!

ACCOUNTABILTY BEGINS AT THE BALLOT BOX.

BUT, AS YOU MAY HAVE GUESSED, HE IS DOING THIS BEFORE THE UPCOMING ELECTION, WHY?

THIS WAS HE KNOWS HE CAN GET WHAT THIS LOT OF COUNCIL-PERSONS WILL GIVE HIM: READ PAYOFF, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

BUKONT IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES, AND VIENNA NEEDS BETTER LEADERSHIP TO ALLOW ALL TO PLAY BY THE SAME RULES.

2x lot coverage?!?
This is a precedent that should not be allowed.
Multi-family-housing should not be allowed in a single-family area, including in transitional zones.

Transitional zones in this town exist. People can debate what gets built in them, office, townhouse, etc., but they exist. Bukont's effort seems to leave all transitional zone thinking in the dust connecting different neighborhoods and new densities to create a whole new zone.

The result of "a whole new zone" would be? Perhaps, some more sidewalks would get built courtesy of builders since that is how the town likes to get their sidewalks. Wait it out till a builder can do it.

I don't believe that it's the boogie man like I'm supposed to believe it is.

FYI. All property that has been zoned transitional in this town has been granted a site plan modification for up to 80% lot coverage.

"Whole new zones" was the idea behind the Maple Avenue Vision Committee and Church Street redos. We agree - there is room for that, but it should be planned. If your argument is that we will be waiting until the likes of Jane and Maud expire to see anything beyond "planning", you have a point.

At some point all of those Yeonas houses on Cottage were fields. That was change to build all of those houses. Now many of those house are getting torn down and rebuilt - more change. That's life.

"...FYI. All property that has been zoned transitional in this town has been granted a site plan modification for up to 80% lot coverage..."

This is what I'm worried about. There are larger lots in single-family home areas that would take advantage of this and impose excessive, additional adversity on the surrounding areas.

If people want to eliminate transitional zoning now, after much of the commercial/residential border in this town has been developed that way already, they will be facing litigation. The idea of transitional has always been to be a buffer. It doesn't spread. The notion that property abutting commercial is the same as property in the middle of a residential neighborhood is simply not valid. If one wants to debate whether Bukont is proposing too much (he is), that's fine. But to argue that transitional should be eliminated is in direct conflict with Town code.

>>FYI. All property that has been zoned transitional in this town has been granted a site plan modification for up to 80% lot coverage.

See Articles 9 (RM-2 Zoning) and 10 (T-Zoning) of the Town Zoning Code.

Transitional zoning is multi-family residential zoning such as RM-2 zoning used on a VERY LIMITED AND APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY basis to buffer detached single-family residential zoning from VERY HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL zoning activities. RM-2 zoning is
NOT explicitly transitional zoning... but it may be considered transitional zoning when selectively used as such a buffer.

T-Zoning is a specific zone for very specific transitional use for OFFICES that must conform highly with the surrounding residential zoning land use requirements and construction forms.

RM-2 Zoning does not allow transitional use for OFFICES... it must be residential use. It may be loosely referred to as transitional zoning when permitted on a VERY LIMITED AND APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY basis to buffer detached single-family residential zoning from VERY HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL zoning activities, but it is not explicitly transitional zoning... nor is it T-Zoning.

Bukont's double density RM-2 rezoning proposal is NOT standard RM-2 zoning... it is NOT T-Zoning... and it does NOT qualify to be loosely referred to as transitional multi-residential zoning because i) there are no VERY HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL activities encroaching at that location, and ii) its proposed double-density RM-2 zoning is in itself an encroachment and abuse upon the surrounding detached single-family residential zoning that transitional multi-family residential zoning is intended to protect.

Granting a site plan modification for up to 80% lot coverage on all property that has been zoned transitional (T-Zoning) in town may not be so exceptional considering that T-zones are very restricted in how they can be developed such that they blend into the abutting residential neighborhoods... and they probably just wanted more asphalt, not a second 3-story building!

The question remains... how many RM-2 zones are granted double-density lot coverage given that RM-2 zoning is NOT subject to the same rigorous T-Zoning constraints? Double-Density RM-2 zoning with three story buildings and an underground parking garage (and only asphalt for 6 guest parking spaces topside... i.e. the lot coverage is for the buildings!) is NOT T-Zoning and does NOT satisfy the heavy restrictions on T-Zoning intended to PROTECT THE SURROUNDING DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD! And it also isn't even APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY standard transitional RM-2 zoning.

Bukont hasn't got a chance despite his lawyers and idle threats... unless the Town Council over rules the Planning Commission. If that should happen, it won't take long for entire neighborhoods to turnout the vote to throw the bums out. Will Town Council vote on Bukont's rezoning before or after the May election?

Good question about Council vote - best guess not before election. Bukont could have lowered the ambition on Berry Street and had far less opposition. 6-8 very nice town houses (RTH), facing away from commercial, is very different than a 22 unit apartment farm. That kind of development (RTH) has been done along Vienna's commercial strip in numerous places.

>>But to argue that transitional should be eliminated is in direct conflict with Town code.

Exactly where in the Town Zoning Code does it regulate multi-family residential zoning i.e. RM-2 as "transitional zoning". Article 9 does state that RM-2 Zoning does NOT allow transitional use i.e. OFFICES. I think there is confusion being propagated here between transitional use/T-Zoning/OFFICES and transitional zoning. The Code explains T-Zoning... where does it explain transitional zoning, the VERY LIMITED AND APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY use of multi-family residential zoning to buffer detached single-family residential zoning from VERY HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL activites?

TG, we are missing each other. We are not saying transitional allows RM-2 - your analysis there is right. The broader issue is what options are there for land abutting commercial.

For example, if SB would have proposed 6-8 of these, is there a firestorm?

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Picture 5

If 6-8 of those causes a firestorm, Vienna is destined to be a disaster. The problem here seems to be ambition, greed, and jamming in a proposal that immediately ticked everyone off.

>>We are not saying transitional allows RM-2 - your analysis there is right. The broader issue is what options are there for land abutting commercial.

Right. And let's set that aside for the moment in order to stay focused on what the law allows Bukont to do. It is a disservice to the intent of the Code to allow the legitimate T-Zoning to be confused with the slightly subjective and nebulous transitional zoning such that Bukont's proposal can be argued on the basis of either where convenient, but not be bound by the very restrictive constraints of the actual T-Zoning code while conveniently overlooking the full intent of allowing certain select transitional multi-family residential zoning since this is apparently not defined in the code.

As such, and since it serves my purpose here, I suggest sticking strictly to the Code... the only relevant transitional zoning is T-Zoning defined as transitional use for OFFICES. Thus, Bukont's proposal for double-density RM-2 zoning is strictly a rezoning from RS16 to RM-2... there is no transitional zoning relevant to his proposal... it is simply a request to rezone RS16 to double-density RM-2 so that he can make a bundle of cash. Bukont's rezoning proposal has absolutely NOTHING to do with transitional zoning as defined in the Code. His tricky lawyers whipped up a dual rezoning submittal and injected the transitional zoning argument to obfuscate and to make his rezoning proposal appear to have some basis in the Code. It has none other than a request to rezone RS16 to double-density RM-2 in violation of the spirit and the intent of the Town's Land Use Plan 2006. Typical self-centered Bukont... give him two residential lots today and he'll be back tomorrow wanting to rezone the next two lots over to buffer the neighborhood from his encroaching self.

This is exactly where I thought this was heading.
Large pieces or property that are currently in the Hysterical District lend themselves to be developed similarly.
Sorry.
I object.

Spot on TG. Sort of complicated, but you nailed it.

I get tired from suggesting what Bukont should have built! If you ask me, I think Paul Layer's partially constructed building at Church and Center Street already looks much better than Bukont's bumbled jumble done the block.

The Hysterical District does not regulate zoning. At one point in time every piece of land in this community was "large"...singling out ones that are still "large" (whatever that means exactly) to put some extra burden on them will be met with a property rights defense that those who object may want to weigh carefully. People who attempt to assert "opinions" while ignoring facts will end up looking like the very people who support the no rules Hysterical District in the first place. Vienna's history is all about class warfare. It's future should not be too.