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

Arlington County has been widely criticized for its aggressive lawsuit over the proposed Interstate 395 HOT lanes expansion, which includes allegations that individual state and federal officials committed civil rights violations in approving the project. In a time of significant economic troubles and governmental budget challenges, the county has reportedly paid over $1 million in legal fees advancing this case.

The county may now be reaping an ugly harvest from the negativity it is sowing. Arlington County, with the support of the business community and in particular the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, is currently seeking renewal of a transient occupancy tax that charges Arlington hotel guests and uses those funds directly to promote tourism. In a hearing on the bill in front of the General Assembly’s House Committee on Finance chaired by Del. Timothy Hugo, R- Fairfax.

Del. Hugo reportedly punted on action on the bill until a representative of Arlington County would appear and defend the County’s action on the HOT lanes lawsuit.

The Washington Post quoted Del. Hugo yesterday as saying, "If they have so much money to spend on frivolous, intimidating, abusive lawsuits on private individuals," then the tax is not needed. The Post indicates further that Del. Hugo filed three budget amendments prohibiting state funding for the Columbia Pike Streetcar produce, reducing Arlington transportation funding, and requiring an audit of Arlington’s road maintenance funding.

The Chamber and others have tried to get Arlington to drop this suit. I have previously been strongly critical of the Arlington lawsuit, especially the civil rights claim stating they should have avoided the suit “instead of further killing Arlington’s credibility in Richmond.” That appears to be exactly what has happened but the County does not seem to appreciate this prescience. This lawsuit, particularly the civil rights claims, needs to end. Still, picking this bill as the target for Richmond’s ire seems like misplaced aggression.

Reprinted with permission from the Washington Business Journal

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

We are joined today with a guest post from our colleague, Phil Keating, with a timely report on Arlington County’s newly released Energy Plan issued by the Arlington County Community Energy and Sustainability Task Force. In addition to being Chair of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, Phil is a member of the Task Force and has provided us with some analysis and suggestions:

The Task Force released its draft Energy Plan on September 17, 2010. The plan, truly developed by a group of consultants led by Peter Garforth with input from Task Force members, County Government staff, and other interested parties, is scheduled for a public hearing Thursday, October 21 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Wakefield House School in Arlington. Additional public presentations are scheduled and e-mail comments are being accepted. The schedule for the Task Force contemplates that the Arlington County Board will consider the Energy Plan and move to adopt it in the February to April 2011 time frame.

The draft Energy Plan uses 2007 emissions data as a baseline. The Plan includes a quite aggressive goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions levels by two-thirds from 2007 levels within the next 40 years. Data contained in the plan highlights that commercial building use is significantly higher than either residential or transportation so businesses can expect a disparate impact if the plan is fully implemented. The Plan envisions that the Arlington County Board and the Office of the County Manager will develop and enforce aggressive efficiency requirements, including:

• For renovations, 30% increased efficiency for residential and 50% for commercial construction
• For new construction, 30% increased efficiency above current code expectations
• Submission of a detailed narrative on how projects plan to achieve the goals
• Developers willing to commit to agreed levels of energy performance, “may be allowed incentives.”

The Plan further calls for migration to District-Energy (DE) in high-density areas starting in 2015. Interestingly, the Plan states, “The legal framework for the DE utility will be created immediately with clear business rules, along with access to the appropriate utility expertise, capital depth, and operating understandings with the County, Washington Gas (WGL), and Dominion Virginia Power (DVP). .. The County will create planning and construction guidelines for DE preferred areas including connection norms to make buildings DE-ready as an early implementation action following approval of the CEP.” While some specific areas under unified ownership may currently be ripe for a DE approach, these provisions of the Plan should rightly give the business and development community significant hesitation as potential threats to an already complex approval process.

As stated above, the real work with respect to the Energy Plan starts now and, as the expression goes, “the devil is in the details.” In the case of the draft Energy Plan, the essential details are not being addressed at this stage and are being deferred to County Government staff and, possibly, groups of individuals appointed by the County Board. From the perspective of the business community, including the broader development and real estate sector, there are significant concerns about the implementation and enforcement phases of the Energy Plan. These include the unstated issues of cost, the decisions that need to be made as to who will bear the cost, the economic and marketplace viability of the stated goals in the time frames contemplated, the impact on the rights of property owners, and the enforcement mechanisms that will be adopted by the County Government. In cases where actions are being taken in the interest of the general public good, the position we are advocating at the Arlington Chamber of Commerce is that the general public should bear the expense of that action and not just the business community.

We look forward to future commentary and discussion regarding this topic, both in the public process and here at the blog. For more detailed comments and reaction, please feel free to review my longer treatment of the Plan.

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

Arlington County has moved to sue yet another individual transportation official in its pending HOT lanes project in federal court in the District of Columbia.  The pending case, a fight over the HOT/HOV lanes in I-395, argues that VDOT and the US Department of Transportation failed to undertake appropriate traffic, environmental, and other studies in approving the northern section of the project.

In its inital papers, Arlington elected to not only sue the various governmental agencies, but also the highly regarded Pierce Homer, then Secretary of Transportation for the Commonwealth of Virginia, individually.  The primary thrust of the case relates to an alleged failure to consider environmental, traffic and other impacts of the project during the review process.  Arlington County sued Secretary Homer individually for engaging in civil rights violations by allegedly favoring suburban white people over less affluent minority residents of Arlington County.  The Complaint alleges, in a remarkably long, rambling, ninety plus pages, things like:

The use of public funding, to serve the interests of wealthy, predominantly white Virginia residents from the southernmost counties affected by the Project and at the obvious expense of the largely less affluent, predominantly minority and ethnic populations that reside in and along the corridor of the Northern Section, in particular in Arlington County.

Arlington has been widely and universally criticized by the business community, amongst others, for this approach.  The Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, with virtually every significant regional business organization signing off, wrote Arlington County Board Chair Jay Fissette on May 28, 2010 and called out the County's lawsuit as an impediment to regional transportation efforts.  In particular, the letter stated the the civil rights allegations "are not credible and frankly an embarrassment to this region."

How did the County respond?  On June 22, Jay Fissette sent a reply letter to NVTC.  The silence was deafening in that the letter did not even respond regarding the civil rights elements of the lawsuit.  We now see that rather than focusing on the traffic and environmental issues in the case, the County has elected to double down on its strategy of filing suits against individual transportation officials.  The County now seeks to add Edward Sundra, a Senior Environmental Specialist for the Federal Highway Safety Administration, as an individual defendant.  The County again argues in its Motion to Amend and Amended Complaint for individual liability based on Mr. Sundra's alleged individual acts of civil rights violations.

In a time of deep fiscal challenges for state and local governments, Arlington has reportedly spent over $1,000,000 already on this lawsuit.  It is rare that I editorialize and opine rather than report, but it seems to me that money should have been used for a variety of other causes, like keeping the planetarium open, instead of further killing Arlington's credibility in Richmond.  This case, and in particular the allegations against the individual defendants, are easy fodder for the rest of the state to throw up their hands, scoff at Arlington, and say, "See, I told you so."  Continued delays in litigation threaten the Commonwealth's ability to tap into various federal funding sources and we desparately need investment into every potential transportation avenue, including roads, in the region.

For lessons learned on litigation strategy, this case brings to mind a couple of strategic litigation truisms which are worth sharing.  I will leave it for others to judge whether these can or should be applied to this case.

1. Focus on your strongest arguments, do not permit distraction
2. Never weaken a strong argument with a weak argument
3. Always keep your credibility in mind ... it is the hardest coin the gain and the easiest to spend
4. Never forget the big picture or the finder of fact, and
5. Brevity is the soul of wit, especially in drafting pleadings

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

We are very pleased to have another colleague writing for us today.  Jon Kinney is a highly regarded land use and real estate law expert with our firm.  Jon brings us commentary on changes coming to Arlington County's planning for the East Falls Church area in Northern Virginia.

In anticipation of the opening of Metro’s Silver Line, the Arlington County Board established the East Falls Church Planning Task Force to consider key planning issues in East Falls Church, including height and density, land uses, urban design, affordable housing, transportation improvements, open space and environmental sustainability in the East Falls Church area.  The East Falls Church Planning Task Force completed its comprehensive review of the East Falls Church study area this week and forwarded its recommendations to the Arlington County Planning Commission and the Arlington County Board which are both scheduled to take up the issue in a few weeks.

The Task Force recommendations include:

• Mixed use development. The Task Force is encouraging a balance between residential, retail, office and hotel uses in East Falls Church. Building heights are generally limited to four to six stories with the exception of the site immediately next to the Metro station where nine stories are permitted provided heights are maintained at four stories along Washington Boulevard.
• Transition to surrounding single family area. Future development should be designed to respond to the existence of single family and townhouse neighborhoods in the immediate area.
• Open Spaces. The Task Force recommendations include creating a new public space at the heart of East Falls Church at Lee Highway on the western side of Route 66 and a large pedestrian plaza as part of any development of the Metro station site.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian connections to the Metro. An important element of the work of the Task Force was enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle network to the Metro station. East Falls Church is one of the most heavily used bicycle-oriented Metro stations and efforts were made to meet current and future bicycle demand.
• Elimination of commuter parking. An import aspect of the Task Force’s recommendation is the elimination of commuter parking in any future development of the Metro station site.

The Task Force also made decisions regarding affordable housing, quality architectural design and more efficient use of transit at the Metro rail station.  The actual heights and densities in the plan differ only slightly from the existing Arlington County Land Use Plan; in a few cases the recommendation provide less height and/or density than currently permitted.

An important feature of the Plan is an attempt to create a western pedestrian Metro rail entrance in order to bridge the gap in the community caused by the construction of I-66. The Task Force is proposing four separate options to provide pedestrian access from the west side of I-66 to an expanded Metro platform in the middle of I-66  (please see graphic below). The cost associated with this proposal may delay it’s implementation at least until the redevelopment of the Metro site.

Representation of both the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Metro were on the Task Force. VDOT indicated that it has no plans to sell and/or ground lease its land next to the Metro station. Because VDOT owns most of the land located at the East Falls Church Metro station, no major development can occur on this site without their agreement.

Copies of the East Falls Church Task Force recommendations are available on the County’s website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

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