DRB Follies, or What Will Infill Redevelopment Do to Reston's Existing Neighborhoods?

Under the not-at-all-sensational headline "Is the Reston Design Review Board For Hire?", a group of neighbors in a South Reston cul-de-sac have alleged in a letter to the editor published in the Fairfax Times and the Reston Connection that the DRB has greenlighted a teardown that would create what the neighbors call a substantially larger lakefront home on Lake Thoreau for which a member of the board allegedly served as a consultant.

A group of neighbors who have lived on the same cul-de-sac for 30 years are opposing a proposal to tear down an existing home and build an oversized replacement at 2004 Cutwater Court.

We are not against the concept of a rebuild; we object to the size and mass of the rebuild proposed for this site. The proposed structure would be nearly twice as big as the current house, all above grade, on a small 11,000-square-foot lot. It seriously would infringe upon the privacy of close neighbors, as well as some neighbors across the inlet. Several huge trees will also be destroyed.

The proposal is out of scale and not in harmony with the neighborhood... Building "McMansions" on small lots is not in keeping with the character of Reston. It is precedent setting. It should be fully debated.

Let's hope we're not moving into a glorious new era of unchecked infill redevelopment, which will be something there will be a lot more pressure to do as the Silver Line hawtness starts pushing attention and housing prices up in existing neighborhoods. Infill development is almost certainly inevitable and can be done well, but to get a sense of what it can look like when unchecked, wander through some of the 1940s and 1950s neighborhoods near the Metro stations in Arlington, where modest ranchers sit shoulder-to-shoulder with buildings three or four times their size, and often, their height.

People worry about entire neighborhoods being bought out and redeveloped, but a 20-minute walk through a neighborhood like Westover is all it takes to show that piecemeal infill development can be far more devastating if it's not done in a way that respects the character of the existing buildings in the neighborhood. We don't know a lot about the "grammar" of architecture, but we do know an oversized building in an established neighborhood sticks out like a middle finger.

Then there's the whole conflict of interest thingy alleged in the letter to the editor:

On April 19, the third DRB meeting on this matter, Richard Newlon, one of nine listed DRB members, announced he now is advising the applicant, the owners at 2004 Cutwater Court, on their project and would therefore recuse himself from voting.

We were shocked to hear this without any prior notification.

The architect for the 2004 Cutwater Court applicant then made his presentation before the DRB.

Newlon, from his DRB chair, spoke in support of revisions. He questioned an affected party when she voiced her concerns. Newlon sat like a DRB member, but he talked and acted like an advocate and lobbyist for the applicant.

When asked, DRB Chairwoman Barbara Byron said what Newlon is doing was something that was done all the time. She was dismissive about any possible unethical implications.

At one point, Newlon even left his seat with the other DRB members, moved around to the front of the table, presented arguments in favor of the applicant, and quipped that perhaps he belonged on this side. He then returned to his seat next to the other DRB members, engaged in discussion with the other members when the merits were deliberated, argued forcefully for the applicant, and recused himself only from the actual vote.

Of course, letters to the editor are by their very nature one-sided, so we don't know all the facts. But this looks embarrassing.

Although the DRB approved the size of the expansion, there is some "good" news for the property's neighbors:

The official DRB letter that followed said the owners of 2004 Cutwater Court now only need to make some architectural fixes on the proposed structure, and we, the affected parties, can no longer bring up the primary issue, which is the size and massing of the proposed structure.

In other words, you can build a giant shiny McMansion by the lake, but by god, it had better not have snap-in munions in the windows.

Update: Richard Newlon responds to the letter to the editor, arguing that the property owner hired him because they "felt that having an architect more familiar with Reston’s Design Guidelines and contextual design in one of our most beautiful neighborhoods would be to everyone’s advantage," that his input resulted in a design that was more "responsive to the neighborhood," and that the DRB's architect members are frequently involved in similar roles:

Reston architects on the Design Review Board frequently have Reston clients that they represent at the DRB hearings. At the beginning of this meeting, I read my prepared statement that stated my involvement with the project and that I would recuse myself from the voting. I did make comments on the presentation and the design as the application was heard. This is all quite normal.

I would suggest that the negative energy the neighbors have toward this project be re-directed toward the specific design, and not the venomous attacks they’ve directed at their neighbor, myself and the Design Review process.

Read the full text of his comments here.

Update #2: The property owners have written their own response to their neighbors' letter to the editor, arguing that their information about the project was misleading, defending the DRB as "an objective process that is designed to promote proper development" that required them to go through two costly redesigns, and calling their neighbors' objections "a reflection of their bias against long-established processes and policies that have worked against their desires and interests." (Read the full text of their comments here.) They conclude:

DRB Officials are correctly focused on what is fair and reasonable for residential redevelopment in Reston based on objective criteria that must not be influenced by a hypocritical and mean spirited cabal of neighbors even if they have lived in Reston for 30 years.

And beyond the acrimony surrounding this one proposal, the DRB's role as redevelopment projects like this start popping up with increasing frequency in our aging neighborhoods is the real issue at stake here.

Update #3: The Reston Association has issued a statement about the issue.

Update #4: A commenter echoes our concerns about this issue in a much clearer way than we were able to:

This is perhaps a healthy opportunity to explore the larger issue of how a DRB can/should function in a future age of in-fill. "Conflict of Interest" issue aside, are total home rebuild/in-fill development scenarios "too big" for the DRB? Should another authoritative body within Reston have responsibility?

Choices in siding or roof colors are one thing, but entire homes rebuilt from scratch? Houses in the south of Reston are well past forty years old and are reasonable targets for in-fill, and our best answer might not be a volunteer board of skilled architects that reserve the right to consult on the in-fills in question. This is not to diminish the excellent work done by the DRB, but rather, it is simply to point out that the stakes are too high not to have greater accountability, transparency, and (unfortunately) hierarchy of review.

And so we can hope that this resolves itself in as amicable a manner as possible, but everyone is watching because precedent will be set with these early in-fill examples.

Nicely put.