Maple Avenue Corridor (MAC)

Redevelopment should have one goal: Make Vienna a Better place to live.

I have been working diligently to ensure that development along Maple Avenue is consistent with Vienna’s small-town character and compliant with the original MAC Purpose and Intent. Redevelopment is important, but it needs to make sense and not further tax our traffic and infrastructure. Redevelopment does not mean Over development.

As a founding member of Vienna Citizens for Responsible Development (VCRD) I have:

  • Met with Town officials and developers on numerous occasions to provide well-informed factual dialogue regarding MAC irregularities at each step of a MAC project’s approval process;

  • Spoken at virtually every public hearing on the MAC, identifying inconsistencies and ambiguities in the MAC regulations as they apply to a particular project;

  • Created public awareness via the VCRD Facebook page to keep Vienna citizens informed and engaged, urging them to attend and speak at public meetings and let Town officials know their concerns; and

  • Authored and initiated the “Back to the Drawing Board” petition that gathered over 1,000 signatures and led to the current moratorium of the MAC.


  • Determine Maple Avenue’s maximum capacity for traffic and density before approving any more MAC projects.

  • Identify and quantify the long-term implications of increased density on neighborhoods, green space, parking infrastructure, schools, taxes, and our quality of life prior to redevelopment approval.

  • Modify existing MAC regulations to prevent developers from exploiting ambiguities.

  • Change MAC regulation so that green space is available to the public and not lost to inaccessible interior courtyards.

  • Develop strategies for parking. If Vienna wants to be known as a walkable community, there must be places for vehicles to park.

  • Ensure that MAC regulations are consistent with maintaining a small-town look and feel, and are in the community’s best long-term interest.

We must get MAC zoning right. I have studied this for a year and a half. I am equipped to make the difference that Vienna needs to maintain our small town appeal.


If you are concerned about development on Maple Avenue, you certainly have some choices in this election.  All six candidates now appear to favor MAC revision and support the moratorium that is currently in place. It hasn’t always been that way for some, but always for me. I suggest that you consider the following:

First, for the incumbents, look at their voting records, and what they have done on the MAC so far.  It is nice to hear during campaigns that they support revision, but

  • How did each vote when real citizen concerns were raised?

  • How did each vote for 444 Maple?

  • How did each vote for the first Marco Polo project?

  • Did each actively seek to change the supermajority vote?

For the challengers, look at their long-term actions, not just their recent campaign words:

  • Have they actively participated in civic action groups that have challenged MAC projects?

  • Have they spoken at most town meetings in opposition to certain aspects of MAC projects?

  • Have they drafted letters or met with town officials to offer constructive options or discuss MAC ambiguities?

  • Have they taken any significant actions to fix the MAC or initiate the MAC moratorium?

I think that, if you consider actions, you will conclude that I am the candidate who “walks the talk” and will continue to do so with your support.