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

With all the buzz about Congressional ethics investigations and the kinks being worked out of the reformed Virginia General Assembly and Senate ethics rules, I thought it might be an appropriate time to reflect on the rules that govern our local officials here in Virginia.  On this side of the river, conflicts of interests, prohibited conduct and disclosure requirements for local officials are set forth in the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act.

Not only does the Act prohibit the expected tainted conduct (see Section 2.2-3103) and contractual relationships (see Section 2.2-3107) that we would all consider to amount to corruption, the Act then provides a number of generous exceptions to the rules, like, for instance, apparently you can be an officer or employee of a governmental agency, have an interest in a contracting company in excess of $10,000.00 doing business with that governmental agency, so long as you don't have the "authority" to participate in the procurement of the contract.  The rules also apparently don't apply if an officer or employee whose personal interest in a contract with a governmental agency is by reason of his marriage to his spouse who is employed by the same agency.

Quite surprisingly, legislators and public officials may also apparently participate in transactions in which they have an interest so long as they merely declare (see Section 2.2-3112(2)) their interest by stating (i) the transaction involved, (ii) the nature of their personal interest affected by the transaction, (iii) that they are a member of a business, profession, occupation, or group the members of which are affected by the transaction, and (iv) that they are able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. 

While local legislators and government officials may, but are not necessarily required to, recuse themselves from matters in which they have a personal interest, all local legislators, constitutional officers (such as the treasurer, sheriff, commissioner of the revenue, etc.), and certain government officials are still required to disclose their personal interests every year by January 15th.  These disclosures are made by filing a Statement of Economic Interests as set forth in Section 2.2-3117 of the Code of Virginia.  This Statement of Economic Interests is full of good information, such as whether the person (or someone in his or her family):

1. Is a paid officer of a business,
2. Owe more than $10,000 in debt to anyone,
3. Own (and outline the interests) securities in various types of entities,
4. Have been paid for speaking, meeting or publishing anything by anyone,
5. Accepted any gifts from anyone that might affect their judgment,
6. Have any other employers that pay them in excess of $10,000,
7. Have been paid as a lobbyist or to represent the interests of any businesses, or are closely financially associated with anyone that has,
8. Have any real estate assets, or any interest in a real estate asset, that could pose as a conflict.

An interesting loophole in the disclosure requirement for item #6 above existed until just this last legislative session, where legislators and officials, as well as their family members, did not have to report income they receive from other governmental or advisory agency positions.  It should be noted that SB 4, during the last legislative session, was an attempt to close this loophole, and after being "incorporated" with SB 512, it looks like a compromise was struck and the language creating the loophole has been removed, so everyone's disclosure statements next January should yield some additional interesting information.

So what happens to officials that aren't even smart enough to scoot through one of the Act's several loopholes?  Well, they're going to have to deal with the Attorney General, through the local Commonwealth Attorney's Office, who can pursue a Class 1 Misdemeanor, among several other punishments, such as removal from office, civil penalties, etc.

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

The Arlington County Board will be deciding whether to approve a series of amendments to Arlington's Comprehensive Plan relating to Crystal City at their hearing at the end of September, after several years of evaluation on how best to react to the loss of approximately 17,000 jobs and over 4 million square feet of occupied office space due to the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC).  Specifically, the County Board will decide whether to adopt the new Crystal City Sector Plan 2050, and modify the General Land Use Plan and the Master Transportation Plan.

With Long Bridge Park and the Pentagon to the north, the airport and the river to the east, Aurora Highlands and Pentagon City to the west and Alexandria/Potomac Yards to the South, existing metro and VRE access, Crystal City seems well poised to make a comeback.  Here is an exhibit showing Crystal City's existing conditions.  The plan specifically outlines which sites are expected to be redeveloped, which sites have potential for redevelopment, and which sites are expected to remain for the life of the plan (click here for the comparison). Much like the Tyson's Corner Plan, Crystal City's 260 acres are broken up into proposed "districts" (shown here), including the Northwest Gateway, Northeast Gateway, Central Business, Entertainment, South End and West Side Districts, each with their own respective district-level focus.

The areas planned for the highest densities are basically limited to certain principle areas, including the sites in proximity to the planned multimodal transit hub facility and also those sites a the center of the Entertainment District.  The "Base Densities" referenced in the plans show what the existing GLUP designations contemplate for density, and are shown on the Base Density Map.  The plan models a 61% increase in density for Crystal City over the life of the plan, but rather than calling out specific densities caps for specific sites, density under the Crystal City Sector Plan will be controlled by bulk restrictions, shown on plans for height, setbacks, bulk angles, tower coverage, massing, etc.  Land use is set forth on the plan's new Land Use Map, and required on-street retail space is shown on the Retail Frontage Map.

Of particular interest in the plan is the "...addition of a dedicated surface transit-way to Crystal City's existing [transit] system...," that will include a streetcar or trolley system.  The recommended alignment for this system is shown here, as well as a new eastern entrance to the Crystal City Metro Station.  A multi-modal transfer hub facility (shown here) is planned to connect metro, VRE, bus and trolley systems at the location of the existing entrance to the Crystal City Metro Station.

One of the most unique things about Crystal City has always been the Crystal City Underground which connects a lot of Crystal City for pedestrians via a network of tunnels, underground and interior  spaces.   While the plan guides how retail, pedestrian systems and planned open space will make use of these existing features, most of the Underground is contemplated as remaining in place.

The Crystal City Sector is also going to be one of the proving grounds for Arlington's currently developing Community Energy Plan, with carbon reduction and sustainability as some of the major plan objectives, as well as incorporating the proposed streetcar/trolley system's energy needs in Crystal City's district energy plans.

All said, it is a fairly extensive and unique plan, and I don't think a simple blog posting can do it justice.  For those of you that want all the details, here's a link to the entire proposed plan and the staff report for the September hearing.

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

I attended the meeting last Wednesday night regarding the impact of Arlington County's Community Energy Plan on the Arlington development community, held by the County's lead consultant, Peter Garforth, of Garforth International, Jay Fissette, the Chairman of the Arlington County Board, and numerous industry representatives.  I initially blogged about this several months ago (see the post "From Ad Hoc Incentives to a Comprehensive Community Energy Plan") when the Arlington Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force began to develop a forty year energy plan for Arlington County.  It is now unofficially official that the end goal of the task force is to create a new, additional component to the County's Comprehensive Plan to be implemented during the various local land use/special exception processes.  It will therefore have major impacts on the development and capital projects industries, as well as a number of utility companies.

The plan is modeled after a number of plans already implemented and apparently successful elsewhere, such as Copenhagen and the City of Guelph, which have been able to identify and align both short-term and long-term energy goals.  We are told the currently unreleased draft plan considers the following:

• Concepts for "district energy" systems,
• Reshaping infrastructure for localization of systems,
• Use of cogeneration systems,
• Goals to reduce the County's carbon footprint (possibly up to as much as 50%),
• Continuation of an emphasis on efficient building design,
• Smart/monitored metering, and
• Public and private investments.

It also sounds like they contemplate this new shared infrastructure possibly being owned, operated and maintained by an independent, third party entity.  Clearly, shared systems and involving a third party entity/owner will make development substantially more complicated from a lot of different perspectives.  Hopefully, however, adequate time is given to consider what kind of incentives/benefits may be available to help private entities hedge or offset some of the risks until these practices become normalized.

I've asked for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation Peter made which outlines a number of these points and I'll post it as soon as I get it.

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

We have finally reached the last of the five cases from December’s Case Watch with the Virginia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Advanced Towing Company, LLC, et al. v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Record No. 091180.

Virginia Code Section 46.2-1232 (A) allows localities to regulate towing of trespassing vehicles by ordinance, but is silent on the mode or manner of how to carry out that authority. The last sentence of Section 46.2-1232 provides that if a vehicle is towed from one locality to another, the local ordinance of the locality from which the vehicle was towed governs, if that locality has an ordinance.

Fairfax County took advantage of its discretion to have an ordinance regulating the towing of cars, and passed Section 82-5-32, which contains the following language in Subsection (e):

Every site to which trespassing vehicles are towed shall comply with the following requirement: (1) A tow truck operator must tow each vehicle to a storage site located within the boundaries of Fairfax County….

Three towing companies – Advanced Towing in Arlington County, Roadrunner Wrecker in Loudoun County and King’s Towing in the City of Fairfax – got together to challenge Section 82-5-32 (e). The towing companies each had property management clients within Fairfax County, but Section 82-5-32 (e) exposed them to prosecution for towing vehicles to their storage lots outside of Fairfax County. The companies argued that Section 82-5-32 (e) unfairly discriminated against towing companies outside of Fairfax County and favored companies inside the county, with no rational basis for that discrimination. They also argued that the ordinance ran afoul of the Dillon Rule, exceeded the county’s authority under 46.2-1232.

Regarding the Equal Protection argument, the parties agreed that the ordinance did not involve a suspect classification or fundamental constitutional right, so the “rational basis” test applied. The towing companies argued that forcing them to store the cars in Fairfax County was irrational because their storage lots are located within five and a half miles of Fairfax County, and allowing them to tow vehicles to those lots would better serve the public. Fairfax County justified the territorial limitation by arguing that Section 82-5-32 had many provisions for safeguarding towed cars, such as nighttime illumination, fencing and posted signs. Under the last sentence of Virginia Code Section 46.2-1232 (A), if a car was taken from Fairfax County and towed to a different locality, Section 82-5-32 controlled, creating a regulatory nightmare for Fairfax County. The trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court agreed that Fairfax County’s argument provided a rational basis for the territorial limitations in Section 82-5-32.

Regarding the Dillon Rule argument, the towing companies argued that the ordinance went beyond the power conferred on the localities to regulate towing vehicles under Virginia Code Section 46.2-1232. The trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court once again sided with Fairfax County. The ordinance allows localities to permit vehicles to be towed outside their borders, but did not compel the localities to do so. Nothing else in Section 46.2-1232 mandated where vehicles are to be towed. The Court concluded that localities can exercise reasonable discretion in setting territorial limits regarding where towed vehicles may be stored without running afoul of the Dillon Rule.
 

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

Last week, Montgomery County, Maryland passed what has been described as the nation's first local carbon tax.  The tax imposes $5 per ton on any entity that emits more than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide in a single year.  Interestingly, the tax only applies to Mirant Corporation which owns the Dickerson Generating Plant in Montgomery County.  Mirant will reportedly challenge the tax in court.  The county also passed an 85% increase on its energy use tax.

The passage of the tax highlights the distinct differences in local authority between Maryland and Virginia.  In Maryland, localities are far more free to adopt their own regulations, taxes and requirements. Proponents point to increased local control.  Detractors point to the patchwork regulatory scheme in Maryland which makes doing business across the state more complex and potentially expensive.

In Virginia, the Dillon rule still controls which provides that localities only have the powers given to them by the state.  While often criticized by local officials seeking more muscular authority, it does tend to lead to more uniformity in business regulation, taxes, and code requirements.  This can be particularly important in the real estate and construction industries.  It appears clear that localities in Virginia would not currently be able to pass a local carbon tax like that passed in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Image by Phillip

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

For those of you that follow our blog who are familiar with land use planning in Virginia, I'm sure you already know that localities are required by the Code of Virginia to create and adopt a Comprehensive Plan.  Typically, a Comprehensive Plan contains a land use plan component, a transportation plan component, various engineering plans, and open space plans, among other things.  Makes sense right?  It is common sense that localities should plan the build-out of their communities in a logical manner, taking into considerations planned densities and uses, necessary transportation systems, and the infrastructure to support everything.

Up until now in Virginia, however, promoting efficiency in energy use and encouraging other sustainable design elements have been accomplished pursuant to ad hoc incentive programs for new construction, and almost universally applicable as part of the public negotiation process for special exception approvals, such as committing to certain USGBC LEED certification levels, etc.  This has resulted in a spattering of improvements to individual buildings and site designs throughout localities in Virginia.  Anybody with a background in engineering knows, however, that a city or county is not just a bunch of separate, distinct buildings, but rather is a large, connected system made up of all of the various components that make localities tick, such as water, sanitary sewer, storm water, communications, electrical and gas systems, etc., etc.  While commercial buildings are a major user of these systems and resources, localities up until now have focused on the users of the systems, rather than focusing on a comprehensive analysis and plan for the entire system.

Well, Arlington County may now be doing just that, and at the direction of Chairman Jay Fisette, has created the Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force to guide the development of a "Community Energy Plan" for Arlington County.  The purpose of the Community Energy Plan is to take a holistic look at the County's energy use from a systemic perspective, and to establish a plan to achieve specific goals for the County, rather than just focusing on improving the County's energy efficiency on a building by building basis (although individual building and site design incentives will remain). 

I could be wrong, but I believe Arlington County is the first locality in Virginia to do this.  It is unclear at this early stage whether the end result Community Energy Plan will become a component of the County's Comprehensive Plan or a separate, stand-alone policy, however, as we've seen before, Arlington might be the setting the next trend in Virginia, provided that localities actually have the authority to do this.  I cannot imagine this will not have an impact on the public negotiation process for new development - building and site design, components, etc. may very well be part of broader public systemic goals in the future.  To what extent at this point, though, is hard to say.  It is also certainly likely to have a broader impact on Virginia's public service corporations.

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

Back to another of the cases highlighted in Case Watch: Upcoming Virginia Supreme Court Opinions. In Schefer v. City County of the City of Falls Church, the Virginia Supreme Court was confronted with a 2006 amendment to a Falls Church ordinance that specified different building height requirements for one-family dwellings in the same zoning district.

Schefer owned twelve lots in Falls Church, all of which were zoned R1-B, a medium-density residential district. The minimum lot area requirement for one-family dwellings in the R1-B district is 7,500 square feet. Schefer’s lots were less than the minimum of 7,500 square feet, but had been lawfully created prior to that requirement, and were designated as “substandard lots.” For substandard lots, the maximum building height for “residential use” on all R1-B lots was the less of 35 feet or two and a half stories.

In 2006, Falls Church adopted Zoning Ordinance 1799, amending permissible height and yard set-back requirements for one-family dwellings of substandard lots. Ordinance 1799 created a formula for calculating the allowable building height of one-family dwellings on substandard lots within residential zoning districts, resulting in an allowable building height between 25 and 35 feet depending on the size of the lot. The maximum height for one-family dwellings on standard lots in R1-B districts remained 35 feet.

When Schefer discovered that Zoning Ordinance 1799 changed the maximum building height for one of his lots to just over 28 feet, he filed suit against Falls Church, claiming that Ordinance 1799 violated Virginia Code Section 15.2-2282’s uniformity requirement and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court had no problem rejecting Schefer’s arguments and siding with Falls Church. Looking at the plain language of Section 15.2-2282, the Court pointed out this section is taken verbatim from the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, except for the addition of the word “uses.” In full, Section 15.2-2282 reads:

All zoning regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings and uses throughout each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts.

To make his argument under Section 15.2-2282, Schefer claimed that one-family dwellings constituted “buildings and uses” that required identical building height requirements. The Court rejected that argument, concluding that this case turned on two kinds of uses – residential use on standard lots and residential use on substandard lots.

The Court gave very short shrift to Schefer’s equal protection argument. Before reaching this issue, the Court noted that Section 15.2-2282’s purpose is to ensure that zoning regulations are not discriminatory, acting as a “statutory reaffirmation” of equal protection. Under its equal protection analysis, Ordinance 1799 was presumptively reasonable, with Schefer carrying the initial burden to show it was unreasonable. Schefer tried to avoid shouldering this burden by arguing that Ordinance 1799 was facially discriminatory, but the Court refused to allow him to escape his burden of proof because there was nothing inherently suspect about Ordinance 1799 and it did not infringe on the exercise of any fundamental right.

Two more highlighted cases remain. In TIR Connail Properties, L.C. v. 2401 Wilson, LLC, we have yet to see whether the Virginia Supreme Court will say that the plaintiff should have been allowed to sue using its trade name, and what the Court will do about the scope of use of discovery deposition testimony. In Advanced Towing Company, LLC, et al. v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, we’ll find out whether the Court agrees with the trial court regarding the Dillon Rule and the doctrine of ultra vires. Stay posted!
 

• 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

A recently completed study by Arlington's Retail Task Force outlined some interesting conclusions for ground floor retail, suggesting something contrary to the status quo of conventional urban planning thought .  Traditionally, in Arlington County, as well as other urban jurisdictions, it has been a moot argument that good urban planning require ground floor space to be used almost solely for retail, or other similar uses that are thought to improve the pedestrian experience and serve the immediate vicinity's every-day needs.  Quite frankly, ground floor retail is simply expected by jurisdictions for almost all urban projects.

The study was a holistic review of modern retail policies that would be of value to any urban locality, focusing not just on any one piece of the puzzle, but instead on economic development/jurisdictional competitiveness, urban planning and transit goals, availability of space to both national and local retail businesses, and the cold, hard numbers that are the result of current land use policies in Arlington County.  The report concluded that "[r]egional retail destinations, including Tysons Corner, Old Town Alexandria and Georgetown are siphoning sales within a very mobile and competitive market.  Whereas Arlington’s land use policies have successfully concentrated development along Metro corridors, our 'retail everywhere' policy - the requirement for first floor retail in nearly all new development - has inadvertently resulted in producing marginal retail spaces in problematic locations...." as well as  an overcapacity of retail space.  The report provides that "[s]uccessful retail cannot be located just anywhere and everywhere. Retail needs sufficient concentrations and massing to build and benefit from synergies and to attract a solid customer base. Spreading retail away from these concentrated nodes dilutes its ability to work cohesively." 

These are a pretty dramatic conclusions, given that virtually all ground floor space of virtually every project, for the past decade or so, has been absolutely required to be retail space.  Clearly, empty retail space that cannot be filled fails to provide any of its intended benefits, and requiring "retail everywhere" may very well have had the opposite of its intended effects.  Empty retail space is not good planning, and is hardly engaging to the pedestrian.  Clearly, nobody wins when space sits empty.

So what does the report suggest as solutions?  Here are the recommendations in a nutshell: (i) focus retail uses in planned retail nodes that provide the convergence of transit/accessibility options (including both walk-ability, transit, and yes, convenient parking), retail density, and retail business mix necessary for sustainable retail success (ii)  broaden the definition of "retail" in the Zoning Ordinance to allow not only classical retail uses, but also other uses that would achieve and/or compliment the same intended planning and economic results, such as studio and service uses, etc., (iii) allow additional flexibility for signage necessary to allow retail businesses to succeed, and (iv) allow more flexibility in first floor building design during the County's special exception processes so that tenant space is more readily and efficiently adaptable to attract prospective tenants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Virginia Delegate Mark Cole is up to it again, proposing another amendment to the business, professional and occupational (“BPOL”) tax laws. Delegate Cole sits on the House of Delegates Finance Committee, and represents the 88th District, spanning Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fauquier Counties and the Town of Remington. As you may recall from my last blog post on proposed business tax reforms in the Commonwealth, he sponsored HB 57, which would freeze BPOL tax rates, and prohibit those localities that do not have a BPOL tax from imposing one.

Currently, the BPOL tax is targeted at a business’s gross receipts, defined by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3700.1 as a company’s “whole, entire, total receipts, without deduction.” Delegate Cole’s proposal, HB 110, would allow localities to decide whether to impose their BPOL tax on a business’s gross receipts, or on its Virginia taxable income.  HB 110 provides two methods to calculate "Virginia taxable income," depending on which is applicable to the business -- a calculation under Virginia Code Section 58.1-322 (Virginia taxable income for residents) or under Virginia Code Section 58.1-402 (Virginia taxable income for corporations). 

Undoubtedly, localities may be skittish of these changes in the face of some very hard economic times and dwindling local budgets. However, businesses should view HB 110 as a welcome change to take the sting out of what many consider to be the harshest aspect of the BPOL tax – the notion of taxing gross receipts with no ability to consider adjustments or deductions.
 

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

Wading through the various layers of requirements, enticements, incentives and regulations that apply to green building can be overwhelming to anyone, let alone the uninitiated.  This process is made far more complicated by adding the layering of federal, state, and local government efforts in this field.

The United States Green Building Council has this effort very easy with regards to LEED related public policy searches.  USGBC has a search engine with multiple selectable criteria to sift through the oceans of regulations to find what you are looking for.  I cannot say the entire database is perfect, but I can say that it appeared that the Virginia state and local discussion was basically accurate, including the status of the green building ordinances in Arlington County, Fairfax County, and the City of Alexandria.

USGBC naturally has an interest in promoting the USGBC's interests with its efforts and these tools are no exception.  The only pet peeve I have is that some of the commentary seems to slant the discussion entirely towards LEED standards without a recognition of the role other standards may play in these regulations.  For example, the USGBC description of the City of Alexandria policy states,

On April 18, 2009, the Alexandria City Council adopted their Green Building Policy requiring all new municipal buildings to achieve LEED Silver certification and all new commercial buildings to achieve LEED Silver certification. The policy also requires all new residential buildings to be LEED Certified with the intention of increasing the standard over time.

In reality, the City of Alexandria policy expressly recognizes the ANSI approved ICC-700 2008 National Green Building Standard for residential construction.  The ICC-700 standard was developed by the National Association of Home Builders in partnership with the International Code Council.  The City's overall adopted standard further provides that while LEED is typical, to the extent equivalent rating systems are available and can be demonstrated as equivalent to the Director of Planning and zoning, they are also acceptable.

That limited comment notwithstanding, the USGBC search engine is a great free tool to dig out federal, state and local requirements.  Careful and prudent use will require clicking through to the underlying source links and maybe digging a bit for confirmation, but used carefully the search tool can save a ton of time and effort.

Image by Timothy Valentine

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• 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

Step 1:  Create Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Authority")

Step 2:  Authority  identifies areas of city that it wants to designate as a "blight"

Step 3:  Authority creates a Master Redevelopment Plan for areas of city it has determined are blighted

Step 4:  Authority uses public funds to condemn all the privately owned land in redevelopment area where private property owners are unwilling to sell to the Authority at the Authority's price

Step 5:  Authority sells some of the land obtained from private citizens to private entrepreneurs for sums it deems appropriate, holds surplus land in inventory for no specifically identified public purpose

Apparently, this is the basic recipe Roanoke has been following in pursuit of a 110 acre redevelopment area created for Carilion's Riverside Center business and medical park complex.  This case is boiling again because the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, whose board consists of 7 members appointed by the Roanoke City Council, condemned and took land from a private property owner that was not was not a blight and was not wanted by the private interests undertaking the redevelopment of the area; this private property was simply located within the area designated by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority's Master Redevelopment Plan area.  In short, private property was taken by governmental authority for no specific public purpose, except that the City apparently did not like its use (a flooring business) and wanted to see it redeveloped at some time in the future, and then the land was to be held in inventory until the City decides how it intends to use it.

This raises some pretty interesting questions, doesn't it?  The government takes extensive areas of land from private property owners for no specific public purposes, entrepreneurs lobby the government to acquire the land for private use (or vice versa), and the government sells the land to private interests of their choice in order to achieve their vision of economic redevelopment of an area.  Without the authority to do this, localities will claim they have little ability to achieve badly needed, large-scale revitalization objectives in blighted areas.  With this authority, localities have the capability to take private property owned by one party and give it to another private party that the locality deems more favorable.

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

The Supreme Court of Virginia recently accepted a Petition for Appeal by forty citizens of Gloucester County who were hit with sanctions for circulating a petition for signatures and filing the petition with the Circuit Court for Gloucester County to have some members of the Board of Supervisors removed by the Circuit Court.  These citizens circulated the petition per § 24.2-233 of the Code of Virginia, gaining over six thousand signatures, after a grand jury indictment of certain members of the Board of Supervisors.  After appointment of a special prosecutor, the trial court nonsuited the petition proceedings, ordered Gloucester County to pay for the legal fees incurred by the Board of Supervisors, and then imposed two thousand dollar sanctions on each of the forty citizens who circulated the petition. 

According to the facts set forth in the Petition for Appeal, two new members were elected to the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors in 2007, providing one voting bloc with a new majority of votes.  Among other things, upon being sworn in the members of this new controlling voting block promptly announced the termination of the then current County Administrator and the County Attorney.  This was apparently not discussed with the minority Board members, or announced to the public prior to their action to do so.  Upon learning this, the Commonwealth's Attorney for the county began an investigation and a grand jury was ultimately convened, which returned criminal indictments for the four Board members.

Generally speaking, § 24.2-233 provides a procedural avenue for citizens to have elected officials removed from office by the local circuit court for misuse of public office.  However, until July 1 of this year, § 24.2-238 did not have a Subsection B, which now explicitly prohibits the imposition of the aforementioned sanctions.  While there are several other arguments that have been made why sanctions should not be imposed, the Petition for Appeal begs the general question whether the judicial branch may impose sanctions on citizens who organize and petition the government where sanctions are not expressly statutorily prohibited.  What does Virginia want to discourage more: arguably wasteful and distasteful mass petitioning movements or the judicial branch's authority to suppress such petitions?

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

Scott McCaffrey of the Arlington Sun Gazette reported yesterday morning that the Arlington Professional Firefighters and Paramedics Association has filed the necessary paperwork (click here to view the Certificate of Receipt and Acceptance Local Referendum and the Statement of Petitioner for Local Referendum) with the Circuit Court for Arlington County to begin the petition process for a ballet referendum to change the system of government in Arlington County from a County Manager form of government to a County Board form of government.  Apparently, the Arlington Coalition of Police is planning on backing the petition as well.

The Code of Virginia authorizes counties to change from one optional form of government to another optional form after approval by voter referendum. This requires: (i) a court order allowing the referendum, (ii) that the court order state the question that will appear on the ballot, (iii) the election must be held within a reasonable period of time after the request, and (iv) that the court has to set the election date.

Such a court order may be obtained by a petition filed with the appropriate circuit court and must be signed by at least ten percent of the voters of the county (as determined by the number of voters registered on January 1 of the year of certification of the petition); however the Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Elections suggests obtaining signatures from an additional five percent of the voters to ensure there are no questions about having obtained the necessary number of signatures. All the signatures must be obtained and the petition re-filed with the Circuit Court within nine months of the original filing.

As most people in Arlington County know, under the County Manager form of government each County Board Member is elected “at large”, the County Board members elect their own chairperson, and instead of there being an independent executive branch of government, the County Board hires an “at will” County Manager as the County’s executive officer. 

Under the County Board form of government being proposed, the major difference is that there would be a Board of County Supervisors consisting of one member elected from the county at large and then one member would be elected from each magisterial or election district in the county once election districts are drawn. However, the board would continue to elect its chairman from its membership.

Also, pursuant to the proposed County Board form of government, there would not be a County Manager, but rather the Board of County Supervisors would hire an “at will” County Administrator which would serve with less powers than a County Manager, with many of the former County Manager’s authorities being exercised by the members of the Board of County Supervisors.

Some commonly acknowledged shortcomings of the County Manager form of government, including lack of normal checks and balances between separated branches of government, have been what has been perceived as the disenfranchisement of minority interests in Arlington County political processes and concern about an exclusive, perpetual one-party system.

Proponents of the current County Manager form of government laud its capacity to maintain continuity of County-wide objectives and believe that it enables county government to actually get things done without the political interruptions you would find in a system of district fiefdoms or another more classic system of checks and balances between branches of government.

It remains to be seen whether this petition is in response to budget decisions being made and a deal will be worked out in that context, or whether it goes in another direction.

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