Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law : Virginia Construction Lawyers & Attorneys : Bean Kinney & Korman Law Firm : VA Real Estate, Land Use & Zoning

It looks like “Punt” is the name of the game with Virginia tax reform. In a January 5, 2010 blog post and a January 20, 2010 blog post, I discussed four tax reform proposals – all of which the General Assembly has managed to put off until a later date.

Apparently, HB 57 got the most traction. This was the bill proposing to prohibit any locality that had not already imposed a BPOL tax from doing so and prohibiting any increase in BPOL tax rates. The House passed that bill with a resounding 88 to 8 vote, but the Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Finance and continued a vote on the bill until 2011.

The other three votes never even made it to a vote by the House. HB 2 recommended a tax credit for small business taxpayers equal to 10% of eligible investments in personal property and real estate improvements. HB 47 proposed tax credits for companies with telecommuting employees. HB 110 would have allowed localities to decide whether to impose BPOL taxes on a taxpayer’s business’s gross receipts or on its Virginia taxable income. All three of these bills got stuck in the House Committee on Finance and were continued to 2011 by voice vote.

I have to admit that, of the four bills, I had the highest hopes for HB 110. I'm sorry to see the General Assembly has put off voting on what would have been a welcome amendment to the BPOL tax statute. Hopefully the General Assembly will agree in 2011!

Here is a piece of good news for Virginia taxpayers and Delegate Mark Cole, who sponsored both HB 57 and HB 110.  Delegate Cole also sponsored HB 17, which proposed to reduce the limitation period for collection of state taxes from 20 years to 10 years. HB17 passed in both the House and the Senate, and was just approved by the Governor last week. This law will take effect on July 1, 2010.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Modular home construction presents significant potential improvements to home construction: significantly reduced construction time; less material waste; and reduced expense.  If not handled appropriately in terms of contracts and risk, modular homes can translate to a gigantic headache for both the designers, contractors, and the owner.

Last Thursday, Lisa Rein of the Washington Post wrote an article on mansions turning to modular construction to reduce time and costs.  The article caught my eye - while I have noticed this trend over the last 5 years or so, it was the first time I saw local mainstream press pick up on this.  My friend Jamie Baker Roskie at the always interesting Land Use Prof Blog picked up on the article and connected the thread towards local codes discouraging use of shipping containers as building materials. 

Adaptive reuse of discarded materials is one of the best ways to improve our economy's sustainability, and using shipping containers for modular construction is really an interesting approach.  Don't believe shipping containers make good construction materials?  Browse through a search of the articles at the highly informative Jetson Green blog that address containers and you will see some remarkable uses of containers, from emergency shelters for recovery in Haiti to very sweet, upscale small footprint breach structures.

Turning from containers to wood based modular construction, count me as a believer that we will see industry move towards more pre-fabricated assemblies to reduce cost and time of construction.  Despite my views on the future, I have particiated in some pretty ugly cases involving modular construction.  Based on the repetitive nature of these problems, I draw some conclusions about risks involving modular home construction that may help put the Washington Post's article into a legal context:

1. Prefabricated assemblies are sales of goods governed by Uniform Commercial Code not construction
2. Sales of goods involve different potential warranty theories and defenses than construction implied warranties
3. Sales of goods potentially have different statutes of limitations
4. While the install time may be shorter, manufacturing and delivery time may be a very different story
5. Most owner/contractor agreements involving modular construction are very weak on defining the remote manufacturer's role and responsibilities
6. Similarly, most owner/contractor agreements poorly define timing expectations until the modular unit is delivered and set on the building pad
7. Simple units seem to do pretty well; however, quality control seems to vary wildly amongst manufacturers and even within specific manufacturers depending on the specifics of a projects and the design complexity
8. As with other manufacturer's warranties, if there are problems, owners and contractors may struggly mightily to get manufacturers to respond appropriately to warranty complaints

This may be coming from the skewed perspective of seeing these projects in litigation, what do you think?  What have you seen?  Finally, how has the economic downturn improved or worsened working with modular manufacturers?

Images by Terretta

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Can you imagine going to your local zoning office, asking for a formal determination from the Zoning Administrator as to whether you are permitted to build a building on your property, receiving a formal written determination that you may do so legally, providing the written opinion to your bank who then provides the financing, then paying for and constructing the building, only to be notified thereafter by the locality that they have either changed their mind or have decided to rezone your property without your consent in the interim?  You complain that you were told by the locality that you could build the building, but all you get is "Sorry, we've decided you can't do that after all."

Does that stick in your craw?  It should, and local officials flopping or waffling over their prior decisions happens, to some degree or another, more frequently than some might think in localities all over our Commonwealth.  Well, you can stop clearing your throat and loosening your tie because the General Assembly voted this past Monday (House 92 to 4, Senate 40 to 0) to make Zoning Administrators more accountable for the decisions they make - decisions on which private citizens must rely.  HB 1250 passed, and it modifies Section 15.2-2307 of the Code of Virginia to provide that formal determinations made by Zoning Administrators, after the requisite appeal or modification period has run, shall be considered "significant affirmative government acts" (aka "SAGAs") if a private party has relied upon a SAGA to the requisite extent.

Our colleagues at Sands Anderson down in Richmond and Beth Wellington blogged earlier this week that allowing private citizens to rely on a formal opinion by the Zoning Administrator (that person holding the statutorily designated office to make such determinations), might somehow allow private property owners to rezone their property "in the dark," or gain some other advantage outside of the public eye.  Yes, it is true that a Zoning Administrator has the sole authority to make a formal, binding determination of what a parcel of land's current zoning classification allows; however, that is in fact the total extent of that authority.  A Zoning Administrator may not grant, through a formal determination, additional rights to use land beyond what is permitted by its current zoning classification. 

The other concerns raised about the bill seem to relate to lack of public notice to other potentially interested parties that such a SAGA is being made (i.e. a Zoning Administrator may issue a formal determination to a property owner without giving other potentially interested parties any notice).  What if you are a co-owner not reflected in any public record, a lender, or an adjoining property owner that would be affected detrimentally by an incorrect determination?  You would have no way of knowing that a determination had been made and that the clock on your appeal window is ticking away.   In fact, realistically, it is very unlikely you would know anything until your appeal period had lapsed (typically only 30 to 60 days, depending on the facts).

Some of the other statutorily listed SAGAs require some kind of legally advertised public review process; however, these are only those SAGAs that are the culmination of processes that allow property owners to do things beyond what they may do by-right, such as variances, special exceptions, etc.  Other by-right SAGAs do not require public review, such as subdivision approvals, plans of development, etc.  Clearly, a zoning determination may not permit something illegal, but who would know until it was too late?  Are we heading toward publishing legal notices that a zoning determination has been made?  How would this jibe with the "A Thing Decided Doctrine" relating to oral determinations made by Zoning Administrators?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am very pleased to report that I will be speaking on April 27, 2010 at the Green Legal Matters Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.  The event includes a large number of talented folks, including good friends of ours from twitter and blogs such as Christopher Hill, Shari Shapiro, and Scott Wolfe.  A number of general counsel of very significant entities are scheduled to participate as well, including:

• Susan Dorn, General Counsel USGBC
• Roberta Lang, General Counsel, Whole Foods
• Steve Harmon, Sr. Dir. Legal Services, Cisco
• Elaine Reilly, Corporate Counsel, DuPont
• Ted Banks, Former Chief Counsel, Kraft Foods
• Kurt Stepaniak, Sr. VP, Law and Acquisitions, Kone, Inc.
• Allyson Willoughby, General Counsel, Method Home

This looks to be a fantastic event.  Last, but not least, the event takes place in the middle of New Orleans' Jazz Fest, a particular favorite of mine.  More information regarding the event is available from the press release issued by the conference organizers.  You can register for the event and see more information on schedule and attendees at the conference website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I don't know how many people out there tracked the events at the sustainability forum out in Portland a few weeks ago, but one of the notable take-aways from the event was that HUD Secretary Donovan used the event as an opportunity to announce that HUD was launching it's new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC) under Deputy Secretary Ron Sims.  OSHC is funded in HUD's 2010 budget.  This follows on the heels of the announcement to create the Inter-agency Partnership for Sustainable Communities between DOT, HUD and EPA last June.

The purpose of OSHC is to work with DOT, EPA and other federal agencies to ensure coordination between housing and other departments involved with sustainable community public policies that effect transportation, utility infrastructure, jobs and environmental planning.  It will also "...strengthen HUD's Energy Efficient Mortgage product and other retrofit financing options - both for single family homes and multi-family rental housing - through a $50 million Energy Innovation Fund... and will also make available an Affordability Index that measures the costs of where a home is located in relation to jobs, schools and transportation."  Additionally, $100 million will be available for integrated metropolitan regional planning initiatives per the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program, and HUD expects to award grants to between 10 and 15 regions around the country.

HUD and OSHC are also seeking input from stakeholders related to creation of regional plans for sustainable development, execution plans and programs, implementation incentives and entities eligible for funding.  You can make recommendations via HUD Wiki, is pretty easy to do.  Also, Builder Magazine interviewed OSHC's Director, Shelley Poticha, last week, where she shed some light on her thoughts on how the federal government fits into regional land use planning.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Commonwealth of Virginia has been slow to apply for, award and perform contracts funded by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, better known as the Stimulus bill).  As the construction industry has suffered through plummeting bidding numbers and 25% national unemployment, Virginia has lagged in even qualifying its projects for funding, let alone getting the money to work.  The bad news is this has slowed down much needed funding.  The good news is it looks like there is a lot more money coming down the pike into the economy in Virginia.

A recent report by Peter Bacque of the Richmond Times Dispatch indicated that federal legislation provided $694.5 million in federal transportation stimulus funding and that less than half that has even been awarded in contracts.  Mr. Bacque indicates the money spent to date has produced 454.4 full time jobs.  This contrasts with the reported job creation in Virginia for US Department of Transportation which sets jobs created or saved at 1,335.54.  Thus, the confusion over job creation and funding that we have previously discussed continues.  Based on the funding numbers, the USDOT funding is clearly not the only agency source of transportation funding for Virginia as there is a minimum of another $100 million in funding.

The more important story is that while half the projects may be under contract, most of the projects have not even begun yet.   The Virginia website reporting on stimulus projects indicates that the total figure for both direct and indirect transportation funding administered through VDOT is $812 million.  VDOT has its own separate site with an ARRA project tracking sheet updated on February 24, 2010.  Call me a glutton for punishment, but I translated that project tracking sheet into a Microsoft Excel document available here.  The tracking sheet describes the percentage complete and I did a calculation of spending of ARRA funds by percentage of project completion.  If that percentage tracks with dollars actually spent, the VDOT site documents only roughly $66 million spent. 

There is an additional $175 million in projects that are either managed by other agencies or do not include a percentage allocation from VDOT.  The roughly $57 million allocated to the Fairfax County Parkway appears allocated and contracted, but the construction appears in its early phases.  Another $52 million is associated with projects in Washington and Roanoke County which are described as having anticipated contracts in May and June 2010.  Finally, it appears that VDOT got a late certification for ARRA funds totalling $70 million for I-66 Pavement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction which clearly has not started yet.  Thus, it appears that little of the $175 million that was not classified by project completion percentage has been spent yet either.  For those in Fairfax, $120 million in future funding is obviously a boon to our transportation woes as well.

It may be that my rough estimate of funds spent based on project completion is not accurate; however, I think we can still draw some reasonable conclusions regarding stimulus transportation funding in Virginia:

• While Virginia was late to the table in applying and certifying its projects, it appears that it got its work done on deadline to qualify for the ARRA funding;
• Many projects have not started yet;
• The bulk of funding has not streamed into many projects yet, meaning the bulk of the stimulus funding impact may be felt over the next twelve months;
• Based on timing of payment applications, payment flow contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers will lag even further behind;
• Based on the foregoing, we should view estimates of jobs created or saved by stimulus funding as pure estimates until the funds actually hit the street.

Image by Sarah Rifaat

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent Fairfax Circuit Court case, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Simpson Unlimited, Inc., the court wrestled with the issue of what exactly constitutes an “improvement” under Virginia’s statute of repose found in Virginia Code Section 8.01-250.

Three Flint Hill Partnership, RLLP designated Simpson Unlimited Inc. to act as in independent contractor on a building construction project, requiring Simpson to repair and replace exterior building components, including removing and replacing terrace soffits on the eighth floor, as well as cleaning other building surfaces. Simpson submitted its application for final payment on December 4, 2002, and was paid for its work on December 16, 2002.

On December 20, 2004, there was a water leak on the eighth floor, causing damage to areas of the building occupied by tenants. Travelers Indemnity did not file suit until March 18, 2009, claiming that the water leak was related to work that Simpson performed under its contract with Three Flint.

Under these facts, Section 8.01-243 (B), the statute of limitations for property damage, gave Travelers Indemnity five years from December 20, 2004, the date the water leak damaged the building and the cause of action therefore accrued. Therefore, Travelers Indemnity’s claim would survive the statute of limitations.

Getting creative, Simpson instead filed a plea in bar based on the five-year statute of repose found in Section 8.01-250. Simpson argued that its work under the contract constituted an “improvement” allowing it to take advantage of the statute of repose, which began to run upon completion of the building project in 2002. Section 8.01-250 states:

No action to recover for any injury to property, real or person, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, surveying, supervision of construction, or construction of such improvement to real property more than five years after the performance or furnishing of such services and construction….

Simpson claimed that the soffit replacement was an “improvement” because it enhanced the value of the building. Travelers Indemnity argued that the soffit replacement not an “improvement” because it was akin to a repair.

Judge Bellows analyzed dictionary definitions and opinions in other jurisdictions, ultimately agreeing with Travelers Indemnity and concluding that the soffit replacement was merely part of the normal upkeep and maintenance of the building rather than a modification or addition of the building, and therefore not an “improvement” that would allow Simpson to take advantage of the statute of repose.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Fourth Circuit has just issued their decision upholding the district court’s ruling in Universal Concrete Products Corporation v. Turner Construction Company, the topic of a December 2009 blog post on the Granby Tower litigation.

The parties agreed that the pay-when-paid clause in the Turner-Universal contract was unambiguous. However, just as it did at the trial court level, Universal argued that the subcontract incorporated the contract between Turner and the owner, creating an ambiguity about whether Turner would pay Universal before being paid by the owner. Universal relied on language that stated the costs the owner would reimburse Turner included “[p]ayments made by the Construction Manager to Subcontractors in accordance with the requirements of the subcontracts.” Just like Judge Martin, the Fourth Circuit concluded that clause related only to the reimbursement amount and not the timing of the payments.

Universal relied on cases from two other jurisdictions – Florida and Missouri – refusing to enforce very similar pay-if-paid clauses. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Virginia would simply not follow those jurisdictions, noting that an October 2009 City of Norfolk Circuit Court decision, W.O. Grubb Steel Erection, Inc. v. 515 Granby, LLC, mentioned the Florida and Missouri cases and opted not to follow their reasoning.

Once again, this case demonstrates that Virginia courts will invariably attempt to enforce the parties’ intent when faced with contractual disputes, even when that may lead to harsh results for one of the parties. Stay tuned on this case – the word is still out on whether the federal government will successfully condemn the site to expand the federal courthouse!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Land use policy is the fulcrum in the tug of war between the property rights of individual owners and the regulatory interest of communities in establishing and enforcing a vision of their own community.  Three separate conversation and analysis threads bring home the reality that the cookie cutter approach to development and even to the ordinances and interpretations that govern development are not the best approach.  Indeed, inflexibility of approach and failing to encourage a more diverse and vibrant style of development are exactly the failings that the new schools of thought of "urbanism" are seeking to replace.

On the first topic, Chris Cheatham reported last week on some criticism of the Tyson's Corner proposal to allow density bonuses to developers for reaching green certification levels.  A multi-family residential developer raised what I regard as legitimate questions about whether LEED should be the only standard used.  If jurisdictions are turning to third party voluntary programs and means of certification, they should develop the means to evaluate and understand these tools and avoid getting handcuffed to a single green standard fits all approach.  While the LEED standards have certainly evolved and continue to evolve, there are some who believe they still reflect their roots flowing primarily from the commercial design and construction environment.

The second thread was covered by my colleague Tad Lunger last week in reporting the results of the recent Arlington Retail Task Force.  Much of Arlington's success has been pinned to the concept of mixed-use development, but many developers have expressed heartburn over filling first floor retail space in areas that do not appear to support such uses.  Many retailers have expressed heartburn that this land use policy creates a glut of too much retail and too much competition.  It appears that the task force has reached similar conclusions.  This is another thread towards the same conclusion that a cookie cutter approach of requiring the same thing in the same way on every project does not achieve the intended results.

Against this backdrop, I ran across a brilliant presentation by James Howard Kunstler posted at Aribra entitled The Tragedy of Suburbia, a video from a TEDTalks conference.  Mr. Kunstler may be somewhat of a lightning rod for the vehemence of his critiques of suburbia, but he makes a lot of great points regarding architecture, community, the challenges we face regarding fossil fuels, and how to build a sense of lasting community through urbanism.  I know this may be a lot to ask, but trust me: watch this video.  It is worth the 20 minutes for sure.  It is thought provoking, and will honestly give you multiple gut busting laughs to boot if your sense of humor is anything like mine.

Pulling this all together, developing vibrant communities certainly requires a regulatory and legislative framework that permits local government to plan areas of density, areas of commercial and residential development, and to encourage the creation of appropriate infrastructure to support those efforts.  That framework should not be reduced to a cookie cutter, one-size fits all approach.  That type of approach is arguably what helped foster the suburban sprawl that most planners are seeking to undo now, most notably in Tyson's Corner locally.  In encouraging a more transit oriented style of development, localities should be mindful of not not crippling the development of true urban commercial cores through excessive restrictive and repetitive requirements, but instead should like to foster organic growth a much as possible. 

Image: Alice and Lorina Liddell on See-saw, from Lewis Carroll photobooks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link