Board of Supervisors of Louisa County, VA v. VHOV

On February 27, 2024, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a landowner and held that the BZA erred in refusing to issue the landowner a variance. In Board of Supervisors for the County of Louisa v. Vallerie Holdings of Virginia, LLC, the landowner purchased a two-story home bordering Lake Anna (the “Property”). The prior owner commenced, but never finished, remodeling work on the Property. After purchasing the Property and without applying for a building permit, the landowner attempted to repair and complete renovations. It then applied to the BZA for a variance to rebuild the staircase and deck, which extend into the Property’s five-foot setback. The BZA denied the variance because it determined that the landowner created its own hardship by spending on remodeling work before getting a building permit. The landowner appealed the BZA’s decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the BZA erred when it denied the variance because the strict application of the zoning ordinance unreasonably restricted the landowner’s use of the Property and the landowner did not create its own hardship.  

Here are some key takeaways from the decision: 

  • Expanding the Availability of Variances: The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly intended to expand the availability of variances in its 2015 amendments to Virginia Code § 15.2-2309. For example, the Code now requires the BZA to issue a variance when the required elements are met. 
  • Self-Inflicted Hardship Considerations: The Court held that under the facts of this case, the issues created by the prior owner could not be considered a self-inflicted hardship on the landowner who applied for the variance.  

 

This article was written jointly by the litigation practice group of our Prince William office.

Arlington County Board Approves Redevelopment Alongside Arlington Boulevard

The Arlington County Board has approved Orr Partners’ proposal to redevelop a 2.2 acre parcel alongside Arlington Boulevard in the Radnor-Fort Myer neighborhood. The proposal includes the demolition of two small apartment complexes, both constructed in the 1950s, and the Red Lion Hotel that currently occupy the land.  In their place, Orr Partners proposes to construct an eight-story multi-family residential building with approximately 445,732 square feet of gross floor area and up to 446 residential units.  The applications were shepherded through the zoning review and approval process by firm Shareholder Nicholas Cumings and Land Use Planner Bernard Suchicital.

The proposed development will renovate and use the existing below-grade parking garage and add additional levels of parking at or above the grade of Arlington Boulevard, but below the grade of nearby sites and the neighboring retaining wall.  Access to the building, including the loading dock, will be located along Arlington Boulevard, which will minimize any impact to neighboring residential buildings (e.g., The Belvedere and Parc Rosslyn).  Community benefits include LEED Gold certified construction, among other green building design features, and the commitment of 22 committed affordable units, including two three bedrooms and 16 two bedroom units, providing much needed family sized committed affordable housing in the Rosslyn neighborhood.

The project continually improved during review by both staff and the site plan review committee as the Orr team was able to develop a positive working relationship with surrounding property owners and civic associations while also addressing important staff comments.  In particular, the team worked prior to and just after initial submission of the project to accommodate a newly planned bike path on Fairfax Drive – which required Orr Partners to shrink the floorplate of the building, but allows the County to construct important infrastructure here that will benefit the entire neighborhood, including future residents.  The team also worked hard to improve the design after receiving some very helpful and constructive feedback during the site plan review committee process, reinforced by comments from County staff.  The team changed façade materials, design, and patterns, and enhanced its commitment to biophilic design with some creative and thoughtful elements including a planted overhang at the building entrance which will serve as an unique, biophilic element that will call attention to the entrance of the project.

This article was jointly written by Shareholder Nicholas Cumings and Land Use Planner Bernard Suchicital.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

https://www.arlnow.com/2024/01/17/apartment-building-proposed-for-old-red-lion-hotel-site-nears-finish-line/

Andrew Painter, Shareholder, Set to Instruct at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business

 

Firm Shareholder, Andrew Painter, will instruct a course on the history of development in Northern Virginia for the Center for Real Estate and Entrepreneurship at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business.  Andrew works in the firm’s Land Use and Zoning practice group, where he focuses on securing zoning entitlements across Northern Virginia, including Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, the City of Falls Church, the City of Fairfax, and the Town of Leesburg. A native of Northern Virginia, Andrew has spent much time traveling and writing about the region’s land development history and received an award from the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association for his review of enduring rural landscapes in Fairfax County.

At the lecture, Andrew will cover questions such as: How did the built environment of Northern Virginia develop into the places we live, work, and entertain in today? How did residential communities develop, from the early settlement of Arlington through the emergence of postwar communities in Fairfax during the 1940s and 1950s to the establishment of large-scale communities in western Fairfax and the expansive planned unit developments in Loudoun and Prince William? What lessons from the past can we learn as we work to develop the region’s future?

If you are a real estate professional who moved to this area, just started your career, or want to learn more about the economic and development history of Northern Virginia, join us to deepen your understanding of this dynamic market, register for the lecture HERE.

Arlington Greenlights Redevelopment of S. Glebe Goodwill Site

Many Northern Virginians have visited Goodwill of Greater Washington’s retail store and donation center at 10. S. Glebe Road in Arlington County. The approximately 1.4-acre site, which features an aging two-story building constructed in 1954 and associated surface parking, experiences the highest volume of donations in Goodwill of Greater Washington’s portfolio, and is one of the most successful Goodwill donation centers nationwide. 

On February 24, 2024, the Arlington County Board approved a rezoning and 4.1 site plan to permit the redevelopment of the site into a new 178,425-square foot mixed-use building.  

The building will include a new Goodwill retail store and enlarged donation processing center, a 3,000-square foot child care facility with capacity for up to 40 children, as well as five floors of all-affordable housing, containing 128 committed affordable housing units (CAFs). With an eye towards serving families and larger households, approximately 73 percent of the CAFs will be two- and three-bedroom units. The building will be served by two levels of below-grade parking. 

The project represents a unique partnership between two non-profit organizations that have long served Arlington County: Goodwill of Greater Washington and Affordable Homes & Communities (AHC).  

Founded in 1935, Goodwill of Greater Washington is a nonprofit organization that provides free job training, education, and supportive services to people faced with disabilities and/or barriers to employment. AHC, established in 1975, is a regional developer of affordable and workforce housing.  

The project represents the first time that Goodwill, anywhere in the country, has partnered with an affordable housing provider to redevelop one of its facilities into a vertically-integrated mixed-use building.  

Planning for the project began more than three years ago when Goodwill of Greater Washington began exploring ideas for upgrading the existing retail store and donation center. After several discussions and design consultations with project architect Michael Foster of MTFA Architecture, PLLC, Goodwill decided to explore the concept of partnering with an affordable housing provider to create a larger mission-driven family-focused mixed-use project. It selected AHC as its joint venture partner.  

Atypical of most Arlington 4.1 site plan applications, a predominant focus of the proposed design is Goodwill’s critical need to accommodate and efficiently process onsite a large volume of community-based donations. Additional considerations include the need to improve the donation and employee experience, bicycle access, and pedestrian safety. 

MTFA’s design, as approved, separates donation, residential, and retail traffic, creates a donation drive aisle, reduces queuing along S. Glebe Road, accommodates loading truck maneuvering, and moves all donation drop-offs and processing within the new building.  

The project will enhance pedestrian safety through the closure of one of the two-existing driveways along S. Glebe Road. It will also deliver an enhanced 10-foot wide clear width sidewalk with plantings, as well as a portion of the planned Arlington Boulevard multi-use trail. An onsite 10-foot wide high visibility raised crosswalk with stop bar and signage will also be provided.  

Environmental sustainability and landscaping figures prominently into the overall design. The mixed-use building will achieve EarthCraft Multifamily Gold certification, and the project nearly doubles the amount of landscaped open space on site, provides an approximately 5,550-square foot outdoor play area, plants additional trees, and features bioretention planters.  

When taken together, the project will provide critical upgrades to an important non-profit facility that is heavily used by Arlington County residents. It also advances goals found in the County’s Affordable Housing Master Plan, Child Care Initiative, Master Transportation Plan, and Community Energy Plan. 

Walsh Colucci shareholder Andrew Painter and associate attorney Lauren Riley represented Goodwill and AHC throughout the process. 

Arlington Moves To Expand Use Of Outdoor Screens In Mixed-Use Projects

Interest in large outdoor video screens in mixed-use developments, outdoor shopping malls, and lifestyle centers has increased in recent years as a way to augment retail vitality as well as imbue a sense of place and visual interest in mixed-use common areas.

With rapid technological advancements in technological color and high-definition over the past decade, such screens have been used to display motion pictures, media broadcasts, live events, concerts, art displays, animation, media advertising, and more. Two well-known local examples of large outdoor entertainment displays may be found at Mosaic District and Comstock’s Reston Station development.

On February 24, 2024, the Arlington County Board authorized a request to advertise public hearings (an “RTA”) to begin the process to amend the Arlington County Zoning Ordinance to permit such visual display screens in certain large mixed-use developments. The amendment would replace the current Zoning Ordinance definition of “Large Media Screens,” and add definitions and performance standards regarding brightness, hours of operation.

While the performance standard parameters have yet to be drafted, it can be reasonably assumed the amendments will include requirements related to outdoor speakers/sound amplification, hours of usage, and locational criteria (e.g., limitation on distance from residential uses and lines of sight to public roadways).

Similarly, a determination of qualifying retail developments is not yet known; however, it is anticipated that these screens would be allowed in projects such as Westpost (formerly Pentagon Row), the Village at Shirlington, The Crossing Clarendon (formerly Market Common), Courthouse Plaza, Ballston Quarter, Pentagon Centre, and the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City.

The RTA represents a major step forward in the implementation of the second round of Commercial Market Resiliency Initiatives (“CMRI”), which seek to enable the County to better respond to changing economic conditions and consumer trends in the face of increased office vacancy and decreased commercial property tax revenue.

The request to advertise authorizes Planning Commission and County Board public hearings as early as April 2024.

Walsh Colucci will continue monitoring this initiative. More information may be found here: https://meetings.arlingtonva.us/CountyBoard/Documents/ViewDocument/_1%20-%20Board%20Report%20(Final)%20-%2026504305%20REQUEST%20TO%20ADVERTISE%20A%20PUBLIC%20HEARING.pdf?meetingId=2458&documentType=Agenda&itemId=51932&publishId=31579&isSection=false

This article was written by firm Shareholder Andrew Painter.

What Employer’s Don’t Know about the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Can Hurt Them

It is likely that many employers assume that if they don’t have unionized workers that they do not have to pay much attention to talk about the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). However, even for employment sectors with no unionized employees- the NLRA policies apply as they affect most non-supervisory employees.[1] The more recent rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), which oversees and administers the NLRA, indicate that the Board is more employee friendly than ever before- so employers ignore the potential impact of the NLRA on their business at their peril.

Back in February of 2023, the NLRB issued a ruling in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), that determined an employer’s severance agreements, which were offered to furloughed employees, were unlawful because they interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.[2]

These severance agreements (like most I have come across in my legal career) contained a provision prohibiting the exiting employees from making disparaging statements about the employer (a non-disparagement provision) and from disclosing the terms of their severance agreements (a confidentiality provision).

The NLRB determined “a severance agreement is unlawful if its terms have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and that employers’ proffer of such agreements is unlawful.”

In August of 2023, the NLRB ruled in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023),  that an employer violated Section 8 of the NLRA by maintaining certain rules for its employees that addressed personal conduct, conflicts of interest and confidentiality of harassment complaints.[3]  The NLRB announced a new standard by which to judge whether employers’ work rules and policies violated the NLRA.  Instead of judging the policy from the perspective of the employer (and whether they had a business purpose behind implementing the rule) the NLRB signaled the new standard would be from the perspective of an employee who is economically dependent on the employer (and which employees aren’t?) and whether the employee could reasonably interpret the work rule to have a coercive meaning presuming they were contemplating engaging in protected concerted activity under the NLRA—then the burden would be met from the perspective of the NLRB

[1] The NLRA does not apply to federal or state governmental units, domestic or agricultural workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of railroads or airlines.

[2] Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities”.

[3] Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the NLRA.

general counsel (who is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practices under the NLRA) in their efforts to declare the rule unlawful.

Protected concerted activity could mean anything from talking to co-workers about wages and benefits, to participating in a concerted refusal to work in unsafe conditions, or joining with co-workers to talk directly to the employer, the media or an agency about problems in the workplace.  The employer could then counter that presumption of unlawfulness, by proving that the work rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest, which cannot be advanced with a more narrowly tailored rule or policy. If the employer successfully meets its burden, then the rule stands. However, with little to no guidance to support what each of these burdens actually entails, there is no way to know how easy it might be for an employer to successfully rebut an initial presumption of unlawfulness.

In Stericycle, the NLRB also struck down the long-standing policy of deeming certain work rules to always be lawful, including rules maintaining investigative-confidentiality rules, non-disparagement rules and rules prohibiting outside employment. So at this point, policies related to workplace conduct and expectations are all subject to higher-levels of scrutiny.

To the extent policies or agreements in the employment setting are found to be unlawful by the NLRB, employees might be reinstated, obtain backpay awards if terminated due to violating such a rule/policy or other penalties. The NLRB may order an employer who engages in an unlawful business practice to cease such practice, and formally issue a revised and compliant policy. It is clear the NLRB is investigating unfair labor practice charges with a greater eye toward protecting employee’s rights than ever before.[1] Even if no unlawful policy or rule is found, these types of investigations disrupt the workplace and cause businesses to spend time and money defending their actions.

In the wake of these decisions, employers offering severance agreements to its employees would be wise to utilize counsel to ensure that the agreement can be drafted in such a way that it does not run afoul of the NLRB’s requirements with respect to confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses.  It is also not a stretch to assume that the reasoning in McLaren Macomb might be extended to other types of agreements, including settlement agreements, employment agreements, and restrictive covenant agreements used in the employment setting.

Additionally, employers should have any employment handbooks reviewed by counsel to have them updated to ensure that current work rules and policies are compliant with the new rulings of the NLRB.

This article was jointly written by Wendy Alexander and Garth Wainman both Of Counsel for the firm.

 

[1] Unlawful labor practice charges were up sharply in 2023 (10% over FY 2022 per the NLRB). See www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/unfair-labor-practices-charge-filings-up-10-union-petitions-up-3-in-fiscal.

The employment attorneys at Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley and Walsh, P.C. can assist with review of severance agreements, non-competes, employment contracts and employment handbooks.


[1] The NLRA does not apply to federal or state governmental units, domestic or agricultural workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of railroads or airlines.

[2] Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities”.

[3] Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the NLRA.

[4] Unlawful labor practice charges were up sharply in 2023 (10% over FY 2022 per the NLRB). See www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/unfair-labor-practices-charge-filings-up-10-union-petitions-up-3-in-fiscal.

Back In My Day… The Complexities of Remote Closings in Real Estate Transactions

I don’t know whether to be proud or to be depressed by the fact that I am now at the point in my career when I can use phrases like: “When I started practicing law…”  or “When I learned how to do it, we always….” Causing every younger attorney within earshot to roll their eyes.   In any event, I was recently involved in a matter in which I was sorely tempted to start using those phrases.  Here’s the story, the facts have been greatly simplified and the names have been changed to protect the innocent: 

The story starts with a real estate agent, Betty Sellitnow.  Betty received an email, generated through a marketing website, from the owner of an undeveloped lot, Joe Lotowner.  Joe expressed an interest in selling his lot and, of course, Betty wanted to sell it, now. 

Even though the county tax and other records showed that Joe lived less than 5 miles from Betty’s office, Betty nonetheless elected to email the listing agreement to Joe to sign via DocuSign, rather than meet with him in person.  Betty also had Joe send her a copy of his driver’s license, just to be sure he was not a scammer. Joe e-signed the listing agreement and promptly returned it, along with the copy of the driver’s license, to Betty, all via email.  Betty jumped right on selling the property, now. 

Betty found a buyer, John and Alice Happycouple, who offered to buy the property for $400,000.00.  Betty promptly emailed the contract to both sides for execution.  Both sides signed the contract, once again via DocuSign.  All was right with the world. 

Betty referred the closing to Impregnable Title to handle closing, with the title insurance policy to be issued by Awesome Title, an agency in which Betty co-owned an interest along with the owners of Impregnable.   

Shortly before the scheduled closing date, Joe contacted Impregnable, by email,  to let them know that he would be on vacation in the Outer Banks on the day of closing.  He asked them to email the closing documents to him so that he could print them up, sign them, get the relevant documents notarized locally, and return them to Impregnable.  Joe remotely signed and returned the closing documents, including an original notarized deed.  Closing went down without incident.  Impregnable wired Joe’s proceeds to an account Joe had provided. 

Shortly after closing, Impregnable got a call from the local police.  The police had been monitoring the account in question because of past fraudulent activity.  They asked why Impregnable had wired such a large amount of money to the account.  Further investigation revealed that: 

  • The person claiming to be Joe (who had communicated with both Betty and Impregnable only via email and whom nobody had even met face-to-face) was not really Joe. 
  • The signature and notary’s acknowledgement on the deed were both forgeries.   
  • Even though Joe said that he was on vacation in the Outer Banks, the deed was allegedly notarized in Hanover County, Virginia and was overnighted to Impregnable from Norfolk, Virginia. 
  • The emailed driver’s license was a fake.  

Impregnable immediately contacted their bank to try to recall the wire.  Alas, it was too late, the money was gone. 

Impregnable, to their credit, immediately tracked down the real owner, Joe Lotowner, to notify him of the fraudulent transaction and advised John and Alice Happycouple to make a claim of their title insurance policy.  They also immediately notified their Errors and Omissions carrier of the potential claims. 

Impregnable’s Errors and Omissions carrier immediately denied coverage and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for declaratory judgment over the coverage issue.  Impregnable was on their own. 

The real Joe immediately filed suit against John and Alice Happycouple under a number of theories to rescind the deed or otherwise quiet title.  John and Alice responded with a third-party complaint against Betty and Impregnable for their failure to confirm that the Joe with which they were dealing was the real Joe.   

The title insurance underwriter, after a thorough investigation, confirmed that the deed and notarization were both forgeries.  Because of this, the title insurance underwriter paid policy limits of $400,000 to John and Alice, but that’s not the end of the story.  The title insurance underwriter then immediately filed suit against both Impregnable and Awesome Title under multiple theories, including breach of their agency agreements. 

John and Alice’s claim for damages was far in excess of the $400,000 purchase price for the property, because they claimed to have had expended quite a large amount of money designing and pursuing construction of the “home of their dreams”.  So, John and Alice were not done with Impregnable and Betty.   

The last I checked, and I do not plan on checking again, ever, Impregnable and Awesome had settled with the title insurance underwriter and had also settled with John and Alice.  Both settlements were funded directly by Impregnable.  John and Alice’s suit against Betty is still on-going, as far as I know. 

All of the title insurance underwriters now have standard operating procedures for remote closings.  However, even when a closing agent follows all of those procedures, a fraudulent seller can slip through the cracks.  When I started practicing law, we always made sure that both sides were physically at the closing table and that one of our own notaries took the steps necessary to confirm the identity of the parties.  While the world has changed, the basics have not.  The entire mess could have been avoided in its entirety if someone, anyone, involved in the transaction would have insisted on meeting the seller in person.  If that was not possible, many other steps could have been taken at any point in the process to confirm that Joe was really Joe or at least that the notary was really the notary.  Don’t let it happen to you. 

This article was written by firm Shareholder John Rinaldi.

 

Joanna Thomas and Brooke West Represent Firm at the 42nd Annual Trial Advocacy College

Congratulations goes to Joanna Thomas and Brooke West, who participated in the 42nd Annual National Trial Advocacy College at University of Virginia School of Law. During this intensive week-long course, they were instructed by some of the country’s finest trial lawyers and judges on how to effectively present opening statements, conduct direct examinations, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and craft compelling closing arguments. The week culminated with a mock jury trial with state and federal judges presiding. Both Joanna and Brooke successfully advocated for their client, resulting in a jury verdict in their favor.

Credit goes to Andy Burcher encouraging Joanna and Brooke to participate.

This experience will allow Joanna and Brooke to help our clients in the complex trials we have scheduled for 2024 and beyond.

Loudoun County Approves JLB’s Defender Project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors recently approved an application by JLB Realty LLC to build a 230-unit multifamily residential development on an undeveloped parcel in South Riding, Virginia.  The South Riding development was originally approved in the 1990s and is known as one of the finest large-scale communities in Loudoun County.  As with many planned developments, however, there remain small pockets of undeveloped land which require creative solutions for “infill” development. In order to accommodate the project, JLB requested a rezoning to the R-24 Multi-Family Residential zoning district, as well as two zoning modifications for a road corridor buffer type adjustment and an increase in building height for one of the buildings. 

 The property is composed of approximately 19.32 acres and is located south of Route 50 along Defender Drive.  South Riding Boulevard lies to the east and Elk Lick Road to the west of the project. 

JLB’s design team created a highly-amenitized project that consists of 230 multifamily rental units located within four buildings.  The buildings are configured to face internally to a central courtyard with lounge areas and a pool for the residents to enjoy.  A state-of-the-art indoor fitness center will also provide year-round indoor recreational space for the future residents. The community will have ample parking, with covered tandem parking spaces. The proposed development will contain thoughtfully designed amenity areas and active recreation space.  Enhanced landscaping and superior architectural design provided throughout the development will increase the visual appeal for the residents and surrounding community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loudoun County has long struggled with the issue of affordable housing units.  The project is expected to provide approximately 168 one-bedroom units, 15 Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) and nine Unmet Housing Needs Units (UNHUs). JLB committed to provide 10 percent of all units as affordable, which far exceeds Loudoun County’s requirement since the project was technically exempt from providing any affordable units. The proposed rental units will help address a needed housing product in this area of the County, which sorely needs smaller-sized units, and will respond to the demand for a continuum of housing in the sought-after South Riding community.   

A key component of this project is JLB’s conveyance of approximately 10.41 acres to the South Riding Proprietary to be used as open space. The South Riding Proprietary’s Board of Directors fully supports the project and was actively involved throughout the rezoning process. In exchange for this conveyance, the project will be annexed into the Proprietary allowing future residents to take advantage of the South Riding open space and amenities. The Proprietary plans to use the open space area as a soccer field. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JLB is particularly proud of the many pedestrian-friendly features throughout the project, including pedestrian connections to active recreation areas, a natural surface trail connection to Elk Lick Park, a “missing link” sidewalk to Tall Cedars Parkway, crosswalks, and additional sidewalk connections.  This project will also help to ensure the success of local businesses by increasing pedestrian traffic to the shops, restaurants, fitness center, and other commercial uses located along Defender Drive.  Attractive buffering will be provided and native vegetation will be featured in the onsite landscaping as well as tree conservation areas. 

The resolution of traffic concerns was a crucial factor in obtaining approval of the project.  The South Riding/Route 50 intersection is operating at a “failing” level of service.  The traffic report prepared by Wells & Associates concluded that the project would have a minimal impact on the intersection generating only 1.6 percent of the overall trips.  County planners recommended that the developer pay almost $1 million toward improvements at the intersection based on a legacy proffer from the original South Riding rezoning.  Walsh Colucci was able to assist JLB in successfully negotiating to contribute half of that cost. This revised contribution accounts for the actual development area proposed by the application and reflects JLB’s conveyance of 10.41 acres of open space to the South Riding Proprietary. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Defender West/South Riding Boulevard intersection is part of Loudoun County’s Intersection Improvement Program (IIP). However, as noted by Supervisor Letourneau, the processes necessary to obtain County funding for the intersection could take several years to complete. The project team was able to successfully mitigate Supervisor Letourneau’s concerns by agreeing to install the traffic signal if it is recommended by VDOT. In order to ensure that the signal is operational as soon as possible, the project team also agreed to complete the signal’s design prior to receiving VDOT approval for the signal. Consequently, the signal will likely be provided two to four years earlier than it otherwise would be, making the roadway safer for future Defender West residents and the overall South Riding community. 

The result of these efforts will be a blueprint for how to utilize “infill” development areas to provide a premier development on under-utilized property and to expand the County’s affordable housing options.