ARB defers Oldstone Estates rezoning after residents raise well‑water and historic‑buffer concerns

The Fairfax County Architectural Review Board on July 9 deferred action on a rezoning request for a five‑acre parcel in the Centreville Historic Overlay District after residents and several board members said more study was needed on water, buffers and impacts to Civil War earthworks.

Clark Massey, speaking for the landowner and development team, presented a plan to rezone the property from R‑1 to PDH‑3 to accommodate 15 single‑family lots and related public improvements. The proposal includes an underground stormwater detention facility and about 30 percent open space, the applicant said. John Regan, president of Christopher Companies and the property owner, told the board the developer “would be amenable to extending that water line down the middle of that thing” to address neighbors’ concerns about well access and connections to Fairfax County water.

At the public‑comment portion, Kim Shepherd, a Summit Street homeowner adjacent to the site, said her neighborhood relies on private wells and urged the board to address water before any zoning recommendation. “Always my greatest concern is water. I think that needs to be addressed before any approval for Old Stone Estates is given,” Shepherd said.

Board members pressed the applicant on the size and placement of buffers around an identified Civil War entrenchment on the property and on grading and tree‑preservation measures. “My fundamental concern is that, in this particular instance, 15 is too many,” said board member John Burns, signaling skepticism that the proposal conforms to the overlay district’s guidance favoring open space and a park‑like character.

After questions and exchanges between residents, the applicant’s engineering representative and staff, the board voted to defer: the motion cited the need for additional assessment of density, site improvements and possible buffering for the historic earthworks. The motion to defer was moved and seconded from the dais and carried by voice vote.

The deferral means the ARB will not submit a recommendation to the planning commission or Board of Supervisors at this time; staff said a future submission should include clearer grading and landscaping plans, a more explicit buffer proposal for the archaeological features, and additional information about the proposed water‑line extension and the costs and required approvals for that work.

The applicant said during the meeting that two archaeological surveys had been completed and that the county archaeologist had approved a 2023 report; board members requested a corrected final report and the county’s archaeological site‑form be included with any revised materials. The project is expected to return to ARB only after the applicant provides the requested technical documentation and clarifications.

What happens next: The ARB’s deferral preserves its ability to comment at later stages. The record shows the board asked the applicant for more explicit grading and landscape drawings, a plan for post‑discovery archaeological monitoring or avoidance measures, and clarity on whether the rezoning recommendation would obligate the board to endorse a fixed unit count.