Debate Continues Over Fairfax City Zoning Amendment, Mayor Drafts Letter to Pro-Choice Advocates

Two weeks after its decision, the Fairfax City Council is still under fire for a zoning amendment  that changes the way medical-related businesses are classified, affecting how new businesses are approved to move into and do business within city limits.

At least one hour of last Tuesday's Fairfax City Council meeting was taken up by members of the public wishing to address the Council on the amendment, which passed in a 4-2 vote July 9 and wasn't on last week's agenda.  

Under the new amendment, clinics are now lumped into the same category as hospitals and surgical centers, which forces them to gain approval from the City Council as well as obtain a $4,800 special use permit in order to do business in Fairfax City. Dentists' and physicians' offices remain classified as offices, and their process remains the same. 

The decision has appalled pro-choice supporters, who say that women's health clinics that offer abortions are being unfairly targeted and call the amendment wildly vague, allowing room for pro-life city politicians to further their own agendas and arbitrarily vote such providers out of the city. 

Mayor Scott Sliverthorne and the City's councilmembers have strongly insisted the amendment had everything to do with clearly spelling out the city's zoning processes to make it smoother and more transparent for new businesses who want to set up shop in Fairfax City, and nothing to do with abortion.

Unlike on July 9, the commenters who stood up to address the Council last week were fairly evenly divided on both sides of the issue.

Several stood up to complain about the decision and ask the Council to reconsider, or at the very least repeal its vote and schedule a re-vote in September or beyond to allow time for councilmembers to consult with those who oppose the amendment. 

Just as many, however, stood up to applaud the Council for their decision, calling it "common-sense" and "reasonable."

One man said he thought it was a wise decision that medical care providers have to be reviewed and approved by the City Council before they can do business locally.

"The City has a duty to protect the health of its citizens, and I think that is what has been done here," he said.

Another man stood up and said he had received copies of court papers that document countless women who had been injured at the one former clinic in Fairfax City that used to provide abortions, NOVA Women's Healthcare, which shut its doors in June, including at least one woman who had to be taken away in an ambulance following an abortion due to excessive bleeding.

"Where were all the advocates of 'women's healthcare' then? Silent," he said.

One of the most vocal groups against the Council's decision has been NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) Pro-Choice. The Northern Virginia chapter's advocacy and communications manager, Alena Yarmosky, also stood up Tuesday night to ask the Council to immediately retract its decision and work together with groups such as NARAL to find a better solution for all involved.

At that time, Mayor Silverthorne said he had received a personal letter from her "raising concerns" about a number of points with the amendment, and that he had drafted a response.

Following Tuesday night's meeting, the City published an official response written by Silverthorne and co-signed by the City Council members and City Manager Bob Sisson, addressing NARAL's concerns, on its website.

Read the full text of the letter on the City's website here.

In it, the letter reiterates the City's position that the amendment was not meant to target abortion providers, and aims to spell out more clearly the definitions used in the amendment to classify different types of medical businesses, and how new businesses will be dealt with that want to move into Fairfax City.

"While I understand that your organization, as well as the other organizations indicated in the letter, are concerned specifically about women's health centers being unfairly targeted, the amendment to the zoning ordinance to define and require special use permits for medical care facilities in commercial districts is in no way targeted at a particular facility or type of facility," Mayor Silverthorne wrote in the letter.

The letter goes on to explain that the City feels there should be careful processes for medical-related businesses in the City, given that it is small - only 6.3 square miles - and that more than three-quarters of the city is zoned as residential neighborhoods that are immediately adjacent to commercial property.

"The relationship between commercial land uses and residential neighborhoods requires particularly thoughtful consideration," Silverthorne wrote. "The process is both transparent and deliberate."

The letter continues, aiming to answer specific questions from Yarmosky and spelling out the criteria businesses will be subjected to in order to obtain approval from the City and Council to do business in Fairfax City.

What do you think to the City's response to NARAL and other such organizations and opponents to the zoning amendment decision? Tell us in the comments below.

FOLLOW FAIRFAX CITY PATCH FOR THE LATEST NEWS AND EVENTS!