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

For those of you out there who are following whether commercial real estate can be taxed at a different rate than residential property, FFW Enterprises v. Fairfax County, et al. has been slated for the Supreme Court's September arguments docket.  Like most other states, in the Commonwealth of Virginia the Constitution contains a "Uniformity Clause" which was intended to prevent the General Assembly from allowing the taxation of different classifications of real property in an inequitable manner.  Specifically, Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia provides:

"...All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, except that the General Assembly may provide for differences in the rate of taxation to be imposed upon real estate by a city or town within all or parts of areas added to its territorial limits..."

The core of the dispute is whether Fairfax County may tax only commercial property owners, such as FFW Enterprises, without taxing residential property owners, to fund transportation projects.  The General Assembly, through Section 58.1-3221.3 of the Code of Virginia, granted authority to Northern Virginia localities to levy special taxes for  transportation projects, and in combination with this authority, Fairfax County created a special tax to fund portions of the Silver Line metro project using Section 33.1-431 of the Code of Virginia.   In a nutshell, Fairfax County taxed commercial property owners a special transportation surcharge and exempted residential property owners from having to do so to fund metro improvements.

Last summer, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (see here for opinion) held that the Uniformity Clause does not prohibit localities from "...provid[ing] for differences in the rate of taxation to be imposed upon real estate..." so long as these differences are not imposed upon the "same class of subjects."  However, in 1947 pursuant to City of Hampton v. Ins. Co. of North America, the Supreme Court has already held that the test to determine the constitutionality of such a tax is:

"[Alre there others, who are benefited as much or more than those smarting under the tax imposition, who go unwhipped of its burden?"

FFW Enterprises plead just that, asserting that residential property owners will benefit as much from the construction of the Silver Line as commercial property owners in Fairfax, however commercial property owners will bear the sole brunt of the costs and taxes.  Nonetheless, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County found FFW Enterprises failed to establish this, and that the 1947 standard is no longer relevant or applicable.  These questions will now be put to the Supreme Court in just a few weeks - we'll keep you posted.

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

This year's proposed Constitutional Amendments are now up for review prior to being voted on during the November 2, 2010 General Election this fall.  There are three proposed amendments on the table:

1. Property Tax Relief,
2. Veteran Property Tax Exemptions, and
3. Increasing the Revenue Stabilization Fund

The first proposed amendment, while technically a real estate tax amendment, facilitates aging in place policies.  Currently, the General Assembly can give localities the authority to grant exemptions from real estate taxes to persons 65 years of age or older, or for persons permanently and totally disabled, for their residence where the normal tax bill would amount to "an extraordinary tax burden" in relation to their income and financial worth.  The amendment now proposed, however, would allow localities to remove the requirement about the "extraordinary tax burden" and gives the General Assembly the authority to allow localities to determine their own income or financial worth limitations for tax exemptions.  If approved,  the senior citizen vote would then be open for bidding in localities across Virginia.

The second proposed amendment relates to the first, which contemplates allowing localities to extend the same real estate tax exemptions to veterans.   As proposed, the amendment would require the General Assembly to pass a law exempting from local taxation the principal residence owned and occupied by any veteran with a one hundred percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability. Also, the veteran's surviving spouse could continue to claim the exemption so long as he or she does not remarry and continues to occupy the home as his or her principal residence.  I'm not sure what would qualify as a "permanent, total disability" but I would expect subsequently enacted legislation would clarify and define these terms.

The third proposed amendment, from the fiscal responsibility front, allows the General Assembly to increase the size of its rainy day fund, entitled the "Revenue Stabilization Fund," from 10% to 15% of its revenues derived from annual income taxes and retail sales taxes.  Note that the fund will not be required to be 15% of these revenue, the amendment merely raises the limit of the fund to a maximum of 15% of these revenues.  If the fund exceeds the 15% maximum limit, the excess is required to be transferred to the general fund.

If you're dying to read the amendments yourself before heading to the voting booth this fall, click here for the actual text amendments.

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

Back on April 14th I blogged about the creation and anticipated operation of the Virginia Defective Drywall Correction and Restoration Assistance Fund (the "DDCRAF") via two new provisions to the Code of Virginia patroned by Delegate Oder this session.  If you read that posting you'll recall that the purpose of the DDCRAF is to create a perpetual, non-reverting fund to facilitate the remediation of property impacted by the use of "Defective Drywall" in residential construction, and I promised to find out whether funding was lined up for the DDCRAF yet.  Delegate Oder's office has been very responsive and helpful in explaining how they envision funding to come through for the DDCRAF.

The bottom line is that there is no dedicated funding for the DDCRAF at this time.  According to Delegate Oder's office, the purpose of the legislation was to "...set up an account where money can be deposited and a process established where money can be distributed to victims of defective drywall... [and] to put Virginia in a position to be able to react immediately if/when funding comes through, either from the Federal Government or from legal settlements."  All said, Delegate Oder's office provided that the DDCRAF was "...modeled after the Brownfield Restoration Fund currently in place in Virginia."

Thus, anticipated funding would potentially come from two sources: the Federal Government and legal settlements.  At the Federal level, the funding for remediation issues is still being pursued by the Congressional Caucus on Contaminated Drywall, and the financial, health and safety impacts are still being managed and investigated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, HUD and the EPA.  The concept of using money obtained from legal settlements is that there will need to be an independent place for this money to be deposited and managed.  So for the time being, the availability of funding is in the hands of Congress and Virginia's own Congressman Glenn Nye, chair of the Caucus on Contaminated Drywall, and his colleagues in the caucus, to do something creative this session.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We've got two new provisions to the Code of Virginia as of this last legislative session which create a perpetual, non-reverting fund to facilitate the remediation of property impacted by the use of "Defective Drywall" in residential construction.  This fund will be administered by the Virginia Resources Authority and the Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD"). 

According to the bill's summary, the DHCD will "...develop guidelines for the distribution of loans or grants from the Fund to particular recipients. The grants and loans may be used to pay the reasonable and necessary costs associated with: (i) the remediation of a contaminated property to remove hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, or solid wastes, ( ii) the stabilization or restoration of such structures, or (iii) the demolition and removal of the existing structures or other work necessary to remediate or reuse the real property" due to the effects of "Defective Drywall." Kind of makes you nostalgic for underground storage tanks, doesn't it?

So what is considered "Defective Drywall?"  Well, it's defined at length in the bill's definitions section, so I won't bore you with all the details, but basically it must have been installed during new construction or renovation between 2001 and 2008 and meet the technical requirements of the definition (i.e. sufficient strontium, sulfur or hydrogen sulfide levels, etc.). 

Who can receive loans and/or grants from the fund?  Eligible entities for grants appear to only include local governments (who appear to be able to then use these grants to create incentives for remediation), while loans may also be made to local governments, public authorities, corporations, partnerships, or individuals for the remediation purposes.  The Virginia Resources Authority will get to determine the rates.

So the legislation is in place creating the fund.  What I've learned about government funds though, is that the most important question about any fund is: Is it funded?  Well, I don't know yet.  But I did shoot the bill's patron,  Delegate Oder, an email to see if he could shed any light on how the fund will actually operate for us - we'll let you know when we hear back.

Want to know more about Chinese and other defective drywall from a product liability standpoint?  Check out Tim Hughes' string of posts here.

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

If you are an owner or operator of affordable rental housing (property with four or more units), it might be worth noting that the General Assembly has just restricted your local real estate tax assessor's discretion to value your property to one method.   Senator Whipple, apparently at the request of the Virginia Housing Commission, patroned a bill passed by both houses this session to amend Section 58.1-3295, requiring localities to assess real property being operated as affordable rental housing solely via the income valuation approach.  Presumably, the reason for this was that local assessors have been trying to tax committed affordable rental housing (i.e. housing that is legally bound to remain and operate as affordable housing at limited rents), at rates that do not reflect these income stream restrictions, by using methods to determine fair market value other than the income approach.

In a nutshell, before this amendment, a local assessor could assess real property three different ways:

1. The Sales Comparison Method, or "Market Approach;"
2. The Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Method, or "Cost Approach;" and
3. The Capitalization of Income Method, or "Income Approach."

Additionally, when dealing specifically with affordable housing, after application made by the owner, assessors were required to consider:

1. The impact of any legally imposed rent restrictions;
2. Any additional operating expenses associated with affordable housing compliance requirements; and
3. Any legally imposed restrictions on the transfer of title or other restraints on alienation.

Assessors were also expressly prohibited from attributing the value of affordable housing tax credits to affordable housing sites.

So, basically, assessors will still be required to take into account the special affordable housing valuation factors listed above, but will now be required to only use the Income Approach in determining fair market value.  Well, the policies involved being fairly apparent, we just have to wait and see whether local assessors will decide whether they think they need to obey this new valuation as prescribed by this amendment, or whether they may disregard it.  In any event, it may be worth looking into how your local assessor is currently determining the value of your affordable housing inventory.

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

In what appears to be an effort to allow localities to provide additional incentives to redevelop certain areas or sites, both houses of the General Assembly have voted to modify Section 15.2-2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, better known as the "TDR Statute" (inclusive of Section 15.2-2316.1 as well).  Previously, transferable development rights ("TDRs") severed from a "sending" site or area could only be equal to the TDRs permitted to be attached to the "receiving" site.  The modification now allows TDRs transferred to receiving sites to be greater than those severed from the sending sites. 

I have to admit, you can read this modification to mean a number of things.  If localities are smart, they could really use this modification to their advantage.  Read one way, this could allow localities an additional method to encourage owners of transferable development rights to transfer their density to sites that are less favorable from a business standpoint but more favorable from a planning standpoint.  It arguably provides localities with the ability to prioritize which sites should receive density through what amounts to a receiving site bonus density program.   It also could potentially allow the regulation and/or balancing of the TDR market because the locality now has what appears to be the additional ability to control market demand of TDRs (i.e. if the market has 15,000 SF of density available for sale, and only 8,000 SF worth of receiving site density permitted, market price for TDRs will be lower than if the ratio is reversed). Localities arguably now have more ability to control the supply and demand for TDRs.

As anyone in the land use racket can see, this is a significant amendment to the TDR Statute, and, as always, the political nuances of who will eventually benefit in any given locality will be interesting to follow.  It is certainly another tool in the planning toolbox localities should not ignore, and of which owners and developers should be aware.   If you want to read more about TDRs, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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 (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With well over two thousand bills filed for this session, I was curious to see what our local urban delegates and senators have chief-patroned this year.  So here's what they're up to:

Delegate Brink has patroned HB 1260, which proposes that the Uniform Statewide Building Code should also apply to buildings or structures built on state-owned property and that the Department of General Services would act as the building official for all such buildings.  He has also patroned HB 1314 which contemplates providing financial incentives equal to twenty percent of delinquent taxes collected by tax collectors, chargeable to the taxpayer in addition to the amount of the delinquent taxes.

Senator Whipple has also patroned two bills.  SB 665 would clarify the authority of the Common Interest Community Board relating to disciplinary actions and fact finding procedures.  SB 681 suggests delaying the effective date for the stormwater management regulations passed last session for a year.

Adam Ebbin, via HB 1222, proposes that electric utilities establish a fund to allow voluntary contributions by customers so that the SCC can use the money to incentivize projects that incorporate photovoltaic devices, solar water heating devices, or solar space heating.  He also thinks that HOT lane shoulder widths should be wide enough to handle transit vehicles, HOV service does not deteriorate, and ingress and egress from local connector streets are adequately addressed (see HB 1223).  Delegate Ebbin also thinks vehicles used in abductions should be forfeited (HB 1113)  and that your income tax filings should be due on April 15 to sync up with the federal deadline, rather than May 1st (HB 1278). 

Delegate Englin wants online political advertisements to be subject to disclosure requirements regardless of space to do so (HB 1261) and  wants to see automatic acceptance of service members to Virginia colleges who were in the top 10% of their graduating class (HB 274).

Senator Ticer wants to amend the charter of the City of Alexandria so that the board of review of real estate assessment is composed of nine members rather than five members, with five members appointed by the circuit court and four members appointed by city council (SB 572) and to allow for TDRs in zoning ordinances in localities with the urban county executive form of government (SB 636).  She also would like to see a license plate for recycling advocates (SB 709) and some careless driving offense proposals (SB 566).  She also proposes relaxing campaign contribution reporting requirements for local officials (SB 723).

Delegate Hope thinks that the Commonwealth Transportation Board ought to give first priority to funding transit operating costs rather than transit capital projects (HB 421), wants to prohibit smoking in all public buildings (except certain portions of corrections facilities) (HB 1351), and most notably, is chief patron of the Green Public Buildings Act (joined by Brink and Ebbin) (HB 1264), which would require all new construction public buildings over 5,000 SF (or renovations amounting to over 50% of the value of the building) to achieve LEED Silver certification or Green Globes two globe standards, achieve energy savings that exceed ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standards by at least 15 percent for new construction and 10 percent for major renovation, and  to provide water use savings of at least 25 percent over the baseline standard established in the federal Energy Policy Act of 1992.

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

Andrew McRoberts reported on Thursday that the Virginia Association of Counties released its Model Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance for Virginia Localities.  Andrew was part of a working group that worked with a number of stakeholders to develop this model ordinance so that it may be used as a guide for localities in Virginia unfamiliar with the concept, application and practice of using transferable development rights, or "TDRs."

TDRs have been used in various places throughout the country for some time now.  Even in Virginia, the County Manager form of Government (as is the case in Arlington County), has been permitted to allow TDRs in its zoning ordinance since 2005.  In a nutshell, TDRs are simply the right to separate the density from one site and convey the density to another site.  This is typically done by identifying which sites can be a "sending site" or a "receiving site" in a locality's comprehensive plan and/or its zoning ordinance.  In Arlington County, for instance, TDRs have been implemented vis-a-vis its unique special exception process (the 4.1 Site Plan Process), and have also been enabled for its Clarendon Sector Plan.

TDRs are an excellent tool which provide useful flexibility for both localities and private interests.  This tool can allow localities to preserve important historical sites and other sites of interest while still allowing private landowners to sell the density off of a site, thus preserving their property rights. It also lets localities encourage redevelopment in areas that don't need extra height or density without having to provide valuable incentives that might otherwise cost localities money (i.e. tax credits, etc.).

The Model Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance for Virginia Localities was drafted to reflect the 2009 updates to Code of Virginia Sections 15.2-2316.1 and 15.2-2316.2, which "...[allow] severance of development rights without their immediate reattachment to another property... [and] provide for local taxation of the severed rights as a separate property interest during the time they are unattached to a specific land parcel."  The model provides example ordinance provisions and definitions, explanatory commentary for the model provisions, and even model legal documents for use when transferring density. 

Being able to transfer density has lead to some pretty interesting transactions and land use/zoning solutions for us here at Bean Kinney, and I am excited to see this very useful tool implemented in other localities in the Commonwealth.

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

Tax reform means “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” – Russell Long, U.S. Senator from Louisiana, 1948-1987.

Despite the budget crisis facing the Commonwealth and local jurisdictions all around Virginia, the General Assembly is considering new tax credits and limits in its upcoming session.

HB 2 proposes a tax credit equal to ten percent of the eligible investments made by small business tax payers in personal property and real estate improvements used in the business. Acquisition of or expenses related to motor vehicles used in the business and purchase or rental of real estate will not qualify as eligible investments. Qualifying investments must be at least $10,000 and must be made beginning July 1, 2010 but before July 1, 2011. For purposes of this proposed tax credit, a business qualifies as “small” if it has 500 or fewer employees. The patrons of HB 2 are Delegate Manoli Loupassi of the 68th District, which includes parts of Chesterfield County and the City of Richmond, and Delegate Christopher Peace of the 97th District, which includes parts of Hanover, Caroline, Henrico, Spotsylvania, King William and King and Queen Counties.

HB 47 proposes a tax credit to employers for expenses incurred in allowing employees to telecommute pursuant to a signed telework agreement for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 but before January 1, 2013. Under this proposed tax credit, an employer is eligible for a credit of up to $1,200 per teleworking employee, depending on the number of days per month the teleworking employee teleworks and whether the employer’s primary place of business is located in a nonattainment area under the Federal Clean Air Act. The employer may also receive a 100% tax credit (capped at $20,000 per employer) for costs incurred for conducting a telework assessment in the year prior to implementing a formal telework program. There is a $1 million annual cap for taxable years 2011 and 2012 for the aggregate amount of tax credits to be issued. This seems like a good deal for the constituents of Delegate Scott Lingamfelter of the 31st District, who is sponsoring this bill. Delegate Lingamfelter is based out of Woodbridge, an area that could greatly benefit by an increase in telecommuting.

HB 57 seeks to prohibit localities from imposing a business, professional and occupational license (“BPOL”) tax if they have not already done so as of January 1, 2010. Additionally, the bill freezes BPOL tax rates in jurisdictions that have already chosen to impose BPOL taxes. This bill is being introduced by Delegate Mark Cole of the 88th District, which spans Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fauquier Counties and the Town of Remington. Unlike its neighbors, Stafford County had no BPOL tax until 2008, when the Stafford County Board of Supervisors narrowly voted to impose the tax by a 4-3 vote. The Stafford County Sun’s article shortly after that vote discusses how opposed Stafford residents were to the tax, and how controversial the vote was. In fact, Stafford County residents were not the only ones opposed to the tax. Some Spotsylvania residents, who were already subject to the BPOL tax, felt that the lack of a BPOL tax in Stafford not only gave Stafford a competitive edge, but also put political pressure on their local politicians to keep their taxes low. You can read one take on this theme in a blog post on the Spotsylvania Republican Committee’s blog, On the Spot.  For an overview of what jurisdictions have imposed BPOL taxes as of 2005, take a look at this chart meticulously pulled together by the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service.
 

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

With the General Assembly set to convene and prefiling ending on January 13th, I thought it would be worth while to take a look at the legislative proposals submitted thus far to see if anything  jumped out at me this year from the land use side of things.  Suprisingly, this session looks kind of light so far (everyone must be focusing on the budget bills...).

From the local government side, it looks like HB 33 proposes requiring additional disclosures by local governments when seeking bond approvals from voters.  It appears the idea is that public notices would have to include not only the amount of debt to be assumed, but now also the anticipated number of years to amortize and the total debt service payable on the principal amount of the bonds proposed to be issued.  More information for voters - how can you vote against this one?

Also, HB 51 proposes to allow localities' governing bodies the option to prepare their own amendments to comprehensive plans rather than having to request the local planning commission to do so.  HJ 11 proposes the necessary constitutional amendment to allow localities to establish their own income or financial worth limitations for granting local property tax relief to seniors (65 year-olds) and permanently disabled individuals.

On the transportation side, it looks like this will be a season of transportation reform.  The big one, HJ 5, according to LIS, proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia to require the General Assembly to maintain permanent and separate Transportation Funds, that revenues dedicated to Transportation Funds actually have to be deposited into the Transportation Funds, and limits the use of Transportation Funds to only transportation related purposes, unless the General Assembly secures a 2/3 plus one majority to borrow from the Transportation Funds.  Borrowed funds would have to be repayed, with interest, within a specified period of time.

Transportation programs are also proposed to now be subject to performance audits by the Auditor of Public Accounts per HB 42.  These audits would include cost saving assessments, and organizational structure/efficiency and effectiveness analysis of transportation agencies by private management consulting firms.

Also, HB 25 proposes to amend the requirements of the Statewide Transportation Plan, and for evaluation of selection of transportation improvement projects, to include as an objective identifying quantifiable measures and achievable goals relating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  HB 55 puts forward limiting assessments on localities for VRE service to no more than a locality collects through its motor vehicle fuel sales tax while HB 19 attempts to allow the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation Commission to charge higher fares to VRE passengers from localities who are not that are not embraced by the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation District.

And finally, from the conflicts of interest camp, members of the General Assembly, per SB 4, would have to disclose any money paid to him/her, or immediate family, in excess of $10,000 by a state or local government or advisory agency.  Former Section 30-111 explicitly allowed members and their family members to exclude what they were paid by various governmental agencies/commissions on their Statement of Economic Interest conflict of interest disclosure form.  I wonder why?

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