Fountain Park lawsuit strikes out in Stafford County court

Stafford County Circuit Court Judge Victoria B. Willis tossed out a lawsuit aimed at delaying a decision by the Stafford Board of Supervisors to rezone six acres of land next to the county’s iconic courthouse, known as Fountain Park.

A private developer is seeking a zoning reclassification to build up to 94 apartment homes on the property, more than currently allowed.

The property and an adjoining 23-acres of county-owned land are at the center of the long-talked “Downtown Stafford” project, which aims to develop an urban, walkable, town-center neighborhood, a first for the county.

Cord Sterling, a Stafford resident who served eight years as an elected member of the Board of Supervisors until 2015, sued the governing body over a records order he filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

Sterling requested documents about the Fountain Park project on June 21. His emailed request was stuck in a spam folder at the county government center, which delayed the county’s response to his order.

Among the many arguments Sterling made in court today, his loudest assertion was that the county didn’t fulfill his records order or did not request more time to complete the order within the five days the law allows. Governments must produce the requested documents within five days, or may request up to seven more days to fill an order. It must notify applicants in writing that they need more time.

Sterling filed his lawsuit last week, but the written lawsuit didn’t include an affidavit, which is required by Virginia law, said Willis. “The affidavit should say ‘swear to under the penalty of purgery,” she said.

She went on to say Sterling had no standing in the case because he doesn’t own property adjacent to Fountain Park and would not be directly impacted by the rezoning decision. Sterling and opponents of the project argue county taxpayers will pay more for local government services like fire and rescue, police, and schools when residents fill the new apartments.

Sterling asked the court to delay the Board of Supervisors vote by 180 days to allow county residents more time to weigh in on the project. Willis left open a door for Sterling to re-file his lawsuit should the Supervisors’ vote, scheduled today during a 3 p.m. Board of Supervisors meeting, not go his way.

Willis was hesitant to rule in the matter. She said she didn’t want to step on the toes of the Board of Supervisors, which had yet to vote on the Fountain Park project. Virginia law requires a separation of powers, she said.

“I lost on a technicality, but it took them five lawyers, to do so,” Sterling told Potomac Local News. “Lesson learned. Hire a lawyer.”

Though not an attorney, Sterling represented himself. Multiple attorneys, led by Stafford County Deputy Attorney David Hondadle and lawyers for property developer JPI, sat on the defense, representing the interests of the county and the developer.

“However, I would rather lose a fight than not stand up for what is right,” Sterling added.

When we broke this story last week, a Stafford County spokesman told us that Sterling’s records order is the only one it is aware of that is caught in its spam filter. Two similar orders filed by Sterling in April and May were fulfilled on time.

The county fulfilled Sterling’s most recent records order — the one which prompted his lawsuit — on Sunday, July 4, Hondadle told the judge.

“It’s not that the county hasn’t run with this to try to get this done,” said Honadle. “Things get caught in spam filters.”

Virginia law doesn’t make an exception for spam filters, argued Sterling. “The county was clear. In its response, the county said it was their spam filter. Not Mircosoft’s. Not that of Russian bots,” said Sterling.

The court heard the case at noon, and Willis had ruled by 12:35 p.m.

Supporters of the project argue the development is needed to attract new businesses and restaurants to the county, to put Stafford on a more even playing field with its neighbors to the north, like Prince William and Loudoun counties.

They also say new offices to house an expanding county government and a much-needed new courthouse could be built on the 23-acres of county-owned land.