TRIANGLE, Va.

—With a 6-0 vote, Prince William

supervisors Tuesday said the zoning
administrator was right – an 83-year-old woman
and her sons, Parker Family LLC, have to turn
over their $100,000 piece of property to the By Roger Snyder/News & Messenger
county for no compensation.
The “T” intersection on the lower right is the
“They basically just get the property,” said Sally intersection of Bradys Hill Road and Old Triangle
Hankins, attorney for Parker Family LLC, Road.
comprised of Dorothy Parker and her sons.
Hankins attended Tuesday’s meeting to appeal
the zoning administrator’s April written decision
on the land dispute. “The county is going to file a document … saying they’re initiating a quick-take
on the property.”

The quick-take will claim the value of the property at zero, she said, giving the county the ability to
assume ownership of the parcel without having to pay Parker Family LLC a dime.

The matter stems from a 2007 rezoning application filed by The Drees Company for 14 parcels near
the junction of Old Triangle Road and Brady’s Hill Road in Triangle. Drees owned 13 of the parcels;

Parker Family owned the 14th, according to the written appeal from Hankins that was filed with the
county.

Drees was seeking to build a townhouse community, Sycamore Square.  At “the request of the

county,” according to staff reports dated September 2007, Drees approached Parker Family to buy
its parcel. Parker Family agreed to the purchase, and the property was included in the residential
rezoning — which immediately dropped the value from around $300,000, when it was commercially
zoned, to around $100,000.

Meanwhile, Drees entered into a proffer agreement with the county for its Sycamore Square
development to dedicate the right-of-way for land on Brady’s Hill Road during the final site plan
approval stage so the county could continue its U.S. 1 road improvement project. Drees would have
obtained development benefits in the deal.

One Parker Family son, now deceased, signed on to this proffer agreement, Hankins said. But the
son who signed was not authorized to enter into this contract on behalf of Parker Family LLC,
Hankins said, adding that land records show only Dorothy or another son, Dan, were legal agents.

“The son who died signed the proffer,” she said. “Our claim is he wasn’t the agent [for this
property].”

Parker Family has another argument: Once Drees obtained the rezoning to residential, it pulled out
of its purchase agreement with Parker Family. That left Parker Family with ownership of its
property, but “burdened by proffers, with no site plan prepared or filed, and with no plans to
develop,” according to the appeal filed by Hankins.

“The Parker Family LLC is not a developer and does not intend to develop the Parker Family parcel,”
but rather “use the money from the sale of [the parcel] to assist in the support of Mrs. Dorothy
Parker, aged 83, who lives in an assisted living facility,” the appeal continues.

Therefore, the proffer should be moot, Hankins said, because its terms wouldn’t kick in until final
site plan approval – and Parker Family LLC has no plans to build anything.

“It’s basically Drees proffered land they were supposed to purchase,” Hankins said. “But they didn’t
purchase it. The proffer does say at the final site approval stage that the property would be
donated … but Drees never went forward with its development. So that timing mechanism was
never triggered.”

The county response to Tuesday’s appeal from Parker Family LLC was brief. Zoning administrator
Nick Evers said the proffer agreement was reasonable, that the county was not to blame for Drees’
sudden halt of its development.

“The sole reason [Parker Family] may not receive any development benefits is because its contract
with the Drees Company was terminated,” according to written responses from county staff. “The
rezoning … and the reasonability of proffered conditions accepted by the board, however, do not
hinge upon any private contracts. The fact that [Parker Family] may have signed a contract with the
Drees Company, which may have had terms unfavorable to [Parker], does not render the proffer
unreasonable.”

Parker Family may, in fact, pursue legal actions against Drees, Hankins said. Parker may also file an
appeal in Circuit Court to seek redress of the board’s vote, she said. The family has 30 days to
decide, Hankins said. But that avenue could prove costly.

“The appeal [to the supervisors] has cost about $20,000,” Hankins said, “and Circuit Court would
cost another $10,000 or $15,000.”

The board decision on Tuesday was only 6-0 because Supervisor John Jenkins, D-Neabsco, was
absent from the meeting and Supervisor Martin Nohe, R-Coles, was absent from the vote, which
occurred right after members emerged from a closed session to discuss the case. Following the
vote, supervisors then held a public hearing on the matter.

Chairman Corey Stewart, R-At-Large, said the public hearing on the quick-take plan had been held
open since May 18, when it was initially put on the agenda, so those interested in commenting had
been given plenty of time. He also said that board members did not discuss policy, but only legal
aspects of the case, during its closed session and that the vote taken after the closed meeting was
different from the content of the public hearing — so the vote did not necessarily make moot
comments that could have come from the public.

“The board doesn’t take a vote or even a straw vote during its closed session,” he said. “The
closed session did not concern the public policy aspect of the taking, only the legal issues.”
Stewart saw the Parker Family dispute as one with Drees, not the county.

“The county does feel like we’re on very strong [legal] ground here,” he said. “From a public policy
perspective, it’s very important the Route 1 project not be delayed. Hopefully, things can be worked
out with the Parker Family and Drees.”

Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-530-3903.

Share This:
Email My Facebook Delicious Digg Twitter Favorites More

ADVERTISEMENT

View More: No tags are associated with this article

Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:

ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Reactions

Voice your opinion by posting a comment.   1  2  3  >   Last »

Posted by miss mannerless on June 09, 2010 at 1:12 pm Flag Comment

“teaming up with developers to “screw”

the little guy.  Nice.“

Liberty for All:  In PWC there is
another proposed development which
BOCS vote has been deferred, but when
vote is taken, will most likely be
approved.  A new road is being built
along the path that developer has
purchased over the last few years
most of the land.  Although this
property is in the rural crescent,
BOCS has already approved this
realignment, tucked in with amother
project, and stated that this realignment would take this property
out of the rural crescent.  Staff has
indicated that if taxpayer funds have
already built this realignment, that
they “hope” to recover from developer
under a proffer later.

One property owner, for personal

reasons, was unable to sell a parcel
after owners death.  When this project
came before BOCS, it was noticed that
PWC and Developer have every intention
to close off an existing thirty (30)
foot right-of-way, which is deeded,
and properly recorded in land records
of PWC, being a perpetual ROW.  This
ROW goes to the existing road, which
staff indicated would be closed to
all traffic, except construction.
Staff has worked with Developer to
just offer another entrance onto
the new road, through their property.
Staff, BOCS, and Developer know that
the heirs to this property do not have
the funds to “fight County”.

Legal documentations seem worthless

in PWC….Developers have had their
say for many, many, many years and
Staff always seems to “look into
their crystal ball and know what
is best for tzxpayers and landowners”.  

In the case being discussed with

no compensation now to property owners
whereby PWCbs just taking another’s
land, PERHAPS THE BEST OR BRIGHTEST
IN ZONING, ETC. MIGHT WISH TO CONSIDER
THE following:
1.  When a developer applies for
a rezoning, is this not on the basis
that they will become owner?
2.  If Drees chose not to become owner
would not the rezoning on the parcel
in question remain as formerly was,
since Drees CANNOT rezone property
they do not own.
3.  Thus was it not Drees that defaulted with PWC on rezoning 
matter
since they did not follow through on
their plan to become contingent owner.
4.  Believe BOCS, in my opinion, should
all be very ashamed of their actions
in this matter.
5.  Co Attorney is beholden to BOCS
and Staff’s Actions.
6.  BOCS, restore original zoning to
this family as they did not apply for
this, but developer apparently did,
and developer defaulted.
7.  As others have stated, this family
should be paid and PRONTO.

Posted by Paul on June 08, 2010 at 11:32 am Flag Comment

Based on the responses from board members I’ve seen here, I think
the article is pretty much accurate.

The board members just seem to stick to their guns that they have
the legal right to the property. They don’t even acknowledge the
question about whether the Parker who signed the proffer was
authorized to - a pretty good sign to me that part of the story was
accurate, too.

No discussion that what they’re doing may be morally questionable

and unfair. Just this notion that we (the county) got the proffer, and
it gave us legal rights to claim the land when we see fit, and some
half-hearted comment tacked on about how they hope things work
out for Ms. Parker.

Posted by cloud22bender on June 07, 2010 at 1:41 pm Flag Comment

My post earlier should read “It really does NOT look right”.

Posted by cloud22bender on June 07, 2010 at 1:26 pm Flag Comment

BOCS members should correct this.  It really does look right.  Also 
received automated phone solicitation from BOCS Stirrup to vote to
a certain candidate.  He’s not going to get my vote. What is it?
“Birds of the same feather flock together?“

Posted by Di123 on June 07, 2010 at 12:42 pm Flag Comment

I wonder why the BOCS hasn’t seen fit to correct any wrongs in this
article - it makes me think.

Posted by Big_Daddy on June 07, 2010 at 12:13 pm Flag Comment

Last week I sent an e-mail to Ms. Caddigan about his mess and my
e-mail was sent to the county attroney based on this being a legal
matter….In that e-mail I was told that this article did not contain all
the facts of the case….If thats truly the case, then why have the
BOCS not made sure that the “facts of the case” to support their
decision been brought to light? I know one thing, this alone very
well could make how I vote in the next election very easy!

Posted by vmj on June 06, 2010 at 11:20 am Flag Comment

OuestionAuthority ... and of course Democrats would never do

anything this underhanded, right?

Please, this is about people having their land taken away and not
being compensated accordingly, not a tug of war on which party is
the most evil.  

Unfortunately for us, both parties qualify in that arena and this is
most definitely local news that concerns us all….

Posted by QuestionAuthority on June 06, 2010 at 10:21 am Flag Comment

Republican-led government in concert with corporations to steal from

citizens. Not news.

Posted by vailbunny on June 05, 2010 at 8:58 pm Flag Comment

This is pretty sad. What the PWC Board did was robbery. Vote these
jokers out!!
 Posted by John B on June 05, 2010 at 3:31 pm Flag Comment

“If the BOCS had any brains, they’d put some pressure on Drees to
follow
through on their deal with Parker, and pay them. Then Drees can
donate the
land to the county. That way, both save face and the Parkers aren’t
screwed. If they can’t manage to do that, then the county owes the
Parkers
proper compensation.“

I think its too late for the board to save face.  The Board made it 
clear that their current stance is “Fair compensation not our
problem.“  and only public and political pressure will cause them to
rescind that.  Hopefully, that will be the case, but they’ve already
lost any confidence I had in them to be any different than the
development-company-proffer whores that preceded them.  
Remember the Tim’s Rivershore Debacle?

Page 1 of 7   1  2  3  >   Last »

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

l Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.

l Respect others.
l Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
l See the Terms and Conditions for details.

Click here to post a comment.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Most Viewed Stories

l Former county executive’s son dies
l Two bitten by fox-like creature
l Woodbridge man to serve over 3 years for mortgage fraud
l State police seize $17,500 in drugs during HOV stop
l Skull, bones found in Woodbridge
l Police catch Dale City stabbing suspect
l One hurt when tree slams into house
l Police investigate Dale City stabbing death
l Board votes no payment for private land
l Woman seriously injured in Woodbridge crash

Your Weather
Things to Do
Snap!
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
 l Pets: Upload and view pet photos
l Shopping: Special shopping sections
l Classifieds:Homes, cars, jobs, and more
l Dining Guide: Maps and more for local
restaurants
l Movie Guide: Showtimes and reviews

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Coupons and Deals Games, Puzzles & Trivia Advergaming and Branded Media

InsideNova.com    Terms and Conditions | Work With Us

InsideNova.com: Contact Us | Email Alerts | Text Alerts | RSS Feeds | Make Us Your Home Page | Site Search
Partners: Database Center | News & Messenger
News Partners: News & Messenger | Culpeper Star-Exponent | Stafford County Sun | Belvoir Eagle | Richmond Times-Dispatch | Charlottesville Daily Progress | HeadlineVA.com