Battling for Manassas: The Fifty-Year Preservation Struggle at Manassas National Battlefield Park

Table of Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Bibliography

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

Appendix V (omitted from on-line edition)

Appendix VI

Appendix VII

Appendix VIII

Manassas Chapter 9

Seeking Partnerships

Negotiations With Hazel/Peterson

When Swain saw the newspaper headlines announcing the William Center proposal, he considered his options. He knew that because the county had approved mixed-use district zoning at the request of Hazel/Peterson, it would view favorably the company's specific proposal for William Center. Making any opposing statements during the public review process seemed fruitless. Swain based this judgment on his past experiences at county public hearings: developers had unlimited time in which to present their proposals at zoning hearings, but Swain had a three-minute time limit to make his case. After three minutes, the county representatives would cut him off. [23]

It had become Swain's custom to pack as much information as possible on the visual impact of new buildings along the park's periphery into these three-minute presentations. He felt the Manassas National Battlefield Park had the potential to be "self-buffering" because its rounded shape allowed visitors the opportunity to escape the heavy development in northern Virginia and step back into a nineteenth-century countryside. Tall buildings along the boundaries would disrupt this historic presence, constantly reminding people of the present. During the zoning hearing over the proposal to build a ten-story Holiday Inn near the park's southern entrance, Swain showed its potential visual intrusion by running helium balloons at the proposed height of the building and then photographing the balloons from different places in the park. By restricting the height of the Holiday Inn and using trees to hide the building, Swain argued that the development would not interfere with the historic preservation mission of battlefield park. [24]

In an ideal world, Swain would have liked no new buildings near the park, but he understood the county's need to diversify its tax base. By asking for height restrictions, he offered what he thought was a compromise. But the county ignored Swain's pleas and in November 1985 amended the regulations for its commercial zoning category to increase the height restriction from forty-five to seventy feet. As Swain wrote in his weekly report at the time, "it appears that Prince William County is going out of its way to accommodate the wishes of developers." [25]

In view of the county's history toward developers and the park, Swain gained permission from the regional director to contact the Hazel/Peterson Companies directly to discuss park concerns over the William Center proposal. Swain began these negotiations in June 1986, one month before Director Mott's speech encouraging active partnerships between the Park Service and local jurisdictions. These negotiations also came before Hazel/Peterson presented its proposal to the Prince William Board of County Supervisors for review and approval. Swain found the developer a willing listener and negotiator. As Til Hazel later stated, "it wasn't our intention to be hostile to the Park Service.... [It was] simply a good faith effort" to keep an interested neighbor informed. Hazel had obtained the option on the Marriott tract with some trepidation, knowing that the Park Service had once considered acquiring the tract. He had reviewed the 1980 Senate hearings over the boundary expansion and felt assured that the Service no longer had an interest in obtaining the land. Sen. Dale Bumpers, who headed the Interior subcommittee that approved the 1980 legislation, later agreed with Hazel's characterization, saying that the 1980 park expansion was supposed to be the final one. Hazel, wanting to avoid contests with the park or park advocates, welcomed the opportunity to talk with the park superintendent. [26]

These discussions between Hazel/Peterson and Swain resulted in the developer adopting several proffers that largely addressed the Park Service's major concerns about William Center. One series of proffers dealt with the visual impact of the development on the battlefield park. First, Swain asked for and obtained an extended buffer zone along Lee Highway, including plantings, berms, or other suitable methods to screen the development from view, thereby protecting the park's Brawner Farm tract from being overwhelmed by its neighbor across the street. Unfortunately, Hazel/Peterson planned to use deciduous trees as a screen, which would fail to hide the development during the winter. Second, Hazel/Peterson agreed to limit the height of all buildings to forty-five feet. Although the planned mixed-use district zoning (which was separate from the commercial zoning category) already contained this restriction, special use permits could be granted by the county for a particular development. Swain convinced Hazel/Peterson of the importance of staying within the forty-five-foot limit for the sake of reducing the visual impact on the park. [27]

Four additional proffers related directly to traffic concerns. First, Hazel/Peterson agreed to provide $2,250,000 toward the design and construction of an interchange at Interstate 66 and the proposed William Center Boulevard, the main artery for the development. This interchange would relieve traffic on Lee Highway through the battlefield park and provide easy access for residential and commercial residents of William Center. Swain expected this interchange to become part of the larger Route 234 bypass that the county had proposed building. Hazel/Peterson also agreed to direct William Center Boulevard traffic south onto Groveton Road, an existing road that separated the proposed William Center from the battlefield park. This arrangement would prevent overloading the Route 234—Lee Highway intersection. Another nod toward traffic concerns included eliminating Lee Highway access to the community shopping center, meant to decrease use of this already heavily traveled road. Finally, the developer agreed to construct storm water retention ponds to limit drainage to the predevelopment rate. This action would prevent frequent flooding of the Lee Highway—Route 234 intersection, where the Stone House stood. [28]

Hazel/Peterson addressed other concerns raised by local residents with additional proffers. The Northwest Prince William Citizens Association (NWPWCA), of which Annie Snyder was a member, persuaded Hazel/Peterson to decrease the number of residential units in the William Center development from 975 dwellings to 560, thereby reducing the county's burden to provide adequate schools and other services for these new residents. To further assist the county, the developer agreed to contribute $50,000 toward public school site acquisition and construction and another $100,000 for public school purposes. Hazel/Peterson included a community trail system to facilitate pedestrian movements throughout the development. Recreational facilities proffered by the developer included a community swimming pool and center, two tennis courts, two multipurpose courts, and a multipurpose ball field. Five acres were dedicated for a fire station and a commuter parking lot. With these concessions in hand and knowing that they had made the best of a bad situation, the NWPWCA spoke in favor of the William Center rezoning. [29]

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/adhi9c.htm