Loudoun Approves New Retail and Restaurant Development at Pleasant Valley Road and Route 50

The recently approved MC Dean special exception application will enable the development of retail and restaurant establishments in an area of Loudoun County that currently lacks these amenities. Located at the intersection of Route 50 and Pleasant Valley Road, the MC Dean property has long served as a gateway to Loudoun County. For decades, the MC Dean property has served as a light-industrial employment use. The area around the MC Dean property has developed over the years with predominantly residential uses. Through the development of these residential uses, the demand has grown for more convenient, walkable, restaurant and retail services.

The MC Dean application included the approval of four special exception uses: restaurant, restaurant with drive-through, retail sales establishment, and automobile service station. As the rezoning process progressed, the project evolved from an auto-centric layout into a pedestrian-friendly design that encourages pedestrian access from the nearby residences. The layout of the project accommodates well-designed transitions to the residential neighborhood to the south as well as Route 50 to the north. A meandering sidewalk and ample landscaping connects the property to the residential neighborhood and a 100-foot wide Gateway Buffer with significant landscaping and design features separates the property from Route 50.

With buildings fronting on an internal east-west corridor, the internal layout fosters a Main Street feel. This layout integrates all six of the project’s land bays into one cohesive design. Outdoor seating from the restaurants fronts on a 5,000 square foot public plaza at the center of the property. A promenade leads pedestrians and vehicles from East Gate View Drive into the public plaza at the heart of the project. The intersection of these features around the public plaza has the potential to create a true sense of place.

Walsh Colucci worked collaboratively with the applicant, its consultant team, and the Board of Supervisors on the design of the property as well as the navigation of policy challenges to gain approval of the project. The residents of this area will now greatly benefit from retail and restaurant amenities within walking distance of their homes.

 

Image Source: URBAN, LTD.

Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Approves ​Twin Creeks Rezoning

A balance of environmental preservation and development potential are elevated to a new level with the recently approved Twin Creeks application. Fronting on over 2,200 feet of undisturbed Goose Creek frontage at the confluence of Sycolin Creek in Loudoun County, the 60-acre Twin Creeks rezoning, special exception, and zoning modification application exemplifies best practices for the accommodation of development while preserving significant environmental features for future public use.

The Twin Creeks approval permits over 1.5 million square feet of industrial development, which is ideally suited for data center development, under the Planned Development – General Industry zoning district. This approval includes the increase of FAR from .40 to .60 as well as the reduction of setbacks along the possible future extension of Gloucester Parkway through the property. Through the rezoning process, the Countywide Transportation Plan (“CTP”) alignment of Gloucester Parkway was shifted to accommodate site constraints. An option to develop the property without Gloucester Parkway, if it’s removed from the CTP, will enable additional development flexibility and the preservation of more environmentally sensitive features.

Over 13 acres of open space and passive park land will be preserved along Goose Creek and Sycolin Creek, which includes some of the widest open space preservation buffers along Goose Creek in Loudoun County. This open space will accommodate future trail access and serve to preserve steep slopes, forest stands, and floodplain areas for future public use. This open space was preserved in consultation with the Emerald Ribbons Committee and the Goose Creek Scenic River Advisory Committee.

The approval of the Twin Creeks application represents an ideal model for the preservation of open space and public usage of natural areas while accommodating the needs of development. Twin Creeks is currently available for sale. Any interested parties should contact John Ryan at CBRE.

 

Image Source: Greenway Engineering

Virginia Issues Mandatory COVID-19 Workplace Related Requirements for Employers

The Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board recently adopted §16VAC25-220 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), Infectious Disease Prevention for SARS-CoV-2 Virus That Causes COVID-19. The standard requires employers to implement safeguards in the workplace and became effective on July 27, 2020.

The standard requires all employers to implement many workplace controls to protect employees from workplace exposure, such as wearing face coverings,  social distancing, hand hygiene procedures, frequent cleaning of high contact surfaces,  and provides for even more in-depth requirements when there are higher levels of exposure risk to the employees, classified as “very high”, “high”, “medium” or “lower” by the standard.

The Virginia Occupational Safety and Health’s Cooperative Programs Division has developed several training and outreach materials for the public. These materials include:

  • COVID‐19 Training PowerPoint for Employers and Employees with an included training certification form
  • ETS Training PowerPoint that explains the elements of the standard with an included training certification form (including different versions for different industries)
  • FAQs about the standard
  • Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan Template (including different versions for different industries)
  • Training PowerPoint on how to develop an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan Template with an included training certification form
  • Flowchart for determining how to classify job tasks by hazards employees are potentially exposed to for “very high”, “high”, “medium”, and “lower” exposure risk levels

Employers will have approximately 60 days to develop and train employees on any Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan required under §16 VAC 25‐220‐70 (for “very high”, “high” and “medium” exposure risk level employees). Covered employers will be given 30 days to train employees on the standard itself under §16 VAC 25‐220‐80.A. (for all employees if there is anyone at the place of employment classified as “very high”, “high”, or “medium” exposure risk)

Penalties for failure to comply will be civil fines ranging from $13,494 to $134,937.

Any employer wanting assistance with reviewing the new Emergency Temporary Standard and/or drafting their Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan should contact Wendy Alexander at 703-680-4664 for assistance.

Reston Comprehensive Plan Study Update

On January 14, 2020, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors authorized a new study of the Reston Comprehensive Plan. Since the Board’s adoption of the Reston Transit Station Areas (“TSA”) amendment in 2014, and the subsequent adoption of the Reston Village Centers & Residential Areas amendment in 2015, there have been approximately 30 rezonings for new developments approved in the Reston TSAs. A task force was assembled in order to alleviate some concern that resonated in the surrounding community regarding the direction of Reston’s future development. The task force, made up of Reston area residents and business members, meets every two weeks to discuss nine areas of focus. These topics are:

  • Projected population thresholds for Reston, and how to ensure that population, infrastructure and the environment are all in balance
  • Land use in the Hunters Woods, South Lakes, and North Point Village Centers – including clarification of what type of future redevelopment proposals might require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
  • The adequacy of existing plan language to generate additional affordable housing, and improvements to plan language to encourage preservation and enhancement of existing communities that now provide affordable housing
  • The adequacy of existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure for accessing Silver Line stations
  • The adequacy of existing Comprehensive Plan guidance to facilitate urban-scale mobility and development design in the TSAs while protecting the stability of nearby neighborhoods
  • Existing Comprehensive Plan transportation improvements to ensure that they are aligned with planned development
  • How the Comprehensive Plan could better facilitate enhancement of Reston’s natural environment, encourage energy efficiency, and support sustainable green neighborhoods
  • How the Comprehensive Plan could address concerns about monopolization of ownership in Reston, and ways to encourage diverse ownership and/or management over the long term
  • Whether the historic practice of promoting privately owned and managed open space sufficiently addresses public needs during the next 50 years of Reston.

The task force is set to meet over the course of the next 12 to 18 months to conduct a plan review as well as engage with the community on these wide-ranging topics. They will produce a report of their recommendations to be provided to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors by the end of 2021. Bernard Suchicital, a land use planner with the firm, will continue to monitor the task force proceedings and analyze their potential impacts to the development potential of the involved properties in the subject area.

Virginia Businesses May Soon Be Required to Implement Workplace Safety Mandates

The Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has proposed Emergency Temporary Regulations that are still in the process of being finalized, which will be required in the upcoming weeks for the protection of workers employed by Virginia businesses. On June 24, 2020, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry presented the proposed regulations to the state’s Safety and Health Code’s Board which voted 9-3 to create workplace safety rules that they will continue to work on and be finalizing in the coming days. The Temporary standards can be found here with changes updated through June 23, 2020.

The rules will be requiring all employers to develop policies for social distancing, disinfection, sanitation, and will require that employees be given notice of positive cases in the workplace. Any employer who has already developed a policy for reopening their business should revisit their policies once the rules are finalized or risk fines or closure in the case of severe noncompliance.

Any employer wanting assistance with reviewing and/or drafting their policies once the specific standards are implemented should contact Wendy Alexander at 703-680-4664 for assistance.

Employee Spotlight: Susan Truskey

Susie, a Fairfax native, joined the firm in March 2020 as a member of the firm’s real estate and commercial transactions practice group. Her practice focuses on the preparation of homeowner and condominium association documents, contract drafting and negotiation, leases, and general representation of community associations. Prior to joining the firm, Susie spent more than eight years representing condominium and homeowners’ associations throughout Virginia. She gained extensive experience serving as general counsel to community associations and assisting them with the preparation of amendments to governing documents, land use matters, covenants interpretation and enforcement, contract review, litigation support, and foreclosures.

She has been an active member of the Washington Metropolitan Chapter Community Associations Institute where she was appointed to serve in various leadership positions and was a frequent contributor to the Chapter’s monthly print magazine. Susie obtained her law degree from The George Washington University Law School and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Finance from James Madison University.

In this month’s Employee Spotlight we’ll get to know the newest addition to the Real Estate Transactions team, Susie Truskey.

Tell us a little about yourself — where did you grow up? Where do you reside now?

I am a native of Northern Virginia.  I grew up in Chantilly and now live in the City of Fairfax with my husband Todd, and dog, Harper.

​What first interested you in real estate law?  

Prior to law school, I began my career in the secondary mortgage market at Freddie Mac.  I have always been interested in law and my experience working at Freddie Mac started me on this path.  In my first 9 years of practice, I worked mostly with community associations and condominiums in Virginia and D.C. where I particularly enjoyed dealing with land use issues.

Your just joined the team not too long ago. So far, what’s your favorite thing about working at Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh?​

​​The people.  My transition to WCLW was in the works prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus and I must say that starting a new job during the beginning of a global pandemic has been interesting to say the least!  I feel very fortunate I was able to begin working at the firm in late March despite the unusual circumstances.  Everyone I have worked with has been extremely welcoming and supportive.  We are all learning to adapt to working remotely and I can’t wait to meet everyone face to face when we are allowed to go into the office.  I am very proud to be a member of the WCLW team.

What’s something invaluable you’ve learned in the practice of law?

That it is truly a practice requiring continual learning, evolution and growth.   Additionally, another thing I appreciate and don’t take for granted is how collegial the practice of law is, even among competitors.

Outside of work, do you have any hobbies or quarantine hobbies?

My two favorite sports are golf and snow skiing.  Fortunately, golf is one of few recreational activities that hasn’t been severely impacted by the pandemic and I have enjoyed getting a couple of rounds in most weekends.  We spent the first 7 or so weeks of quarantine at home in Fairfax but recently have been getting away on the weekends to Bryce Resort in the Shenandoah Valley.  My husband and I have been hiking with our dog Harper, a 6 year old Vizsla, who enjoys adventures and needs plenty of off leash exercise.

​Favorite place to visit/travel to? 

Lately, it has been Bryce Resort in Basye, Virginia because it is accessible but also truly beautiful.  Under normal circumstances, I may have answered Santorini, Greece but international travel has been the furthest thing from my mind lately.

Favorite sports team? 

Washington Capitals

What is your favorite show or book?​ 

Golden Girls

Thanks for sharing with us Susie!

Meridian Group Looking to Expand The Boro at Former NADA HQ

 

The Tysons Reporter interviewed senior land use planner Elizabeth Baker about the Meridian Group’s plans to turn the former headquarters of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) into an extension of The Boro.

 

[ EXCERPT ]

Meridian Group Looking to Expand The Boro at Former NADA HQ

The Meridian Group is hoping to turn the former headquarters of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) into an extension of The Boro.

The plans would redo the old NADA site and an adjacent property — both currently vacant — into a mixed-use development with residential uses, a continuing care facility and ground-floor retail space, Elizabeth Baker, a senior land use planner for Walsh Colucci, told Tysons Reporter.

“The vision is to extend The Boro development across Westpark Drive and to continue the transformation of Tysons from a suburban office park to an urban center,” she said. Read more

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in the Fourth Circuit

The Virginia State Bar Journal of Local Government Law, Spring 2020 edition, recently featured John Foote’s article on The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Read the article here.

 

[EXCERPT]

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in the Fourth Circuit

Why do we still care about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act? Literally thousands of RLUIPA cases have been decided since the Act was passed in 2000, and it would take more than one article, or this writer, to do them justice. The answer may well be that in almost every jurisdiction where a reader may sit, there is likely to be found an evangelical church bursting at its seams in a neighborhood already resistant to its growth, a new synagogue that cannot find land on which to build, and, yes, a mosque that is opposed because it will “generate too much traffic.” Read more

 

Supreme Court of Virginia Limits Ability to Challenge Foreclosures

One of the risks involved with purchasing property at a foreclosure sale is that the prior owner may attempt to challenge the validity of the sale. Often, the challenge to the foreclosure sale is an attempt to avoid or delay eviction after the foreclosure, as the Supreme Court reviewed at length in its ruling in Parrish v. Fannie Mae, 292 Va. 44 (2016). These challenges may also result in a claim on the new owner’s title insurance policy.

On April 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued an opinion that clarifies and further limits the ability of a foreclosed property owner to rescind a completed foreclosure sale. In Young-Allen v. Bank of Am., N.A., 839 S.E.2d 897 (Va. 2020), a property owner in the City of Alexandria facing foreclosure requested a reinstatement quote from the lender prior to foreclosure. The lender did not respond to that request and, despite the property owner’s request that the lender postpone the sale to give her time to reinstate the loan, proceeded with the foreclosure.

On the day before the foreclosure, the property owner filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Alexandria alleging that: (i) the lender breached the terms of the deed of trust by failing to provide the requested reinstatement figures, (ii) the foreclosure trustee breached its fiduciary when it refused to cancel or postpone the scheduled foreclosure sale despite request, (iii) the lender did not have the authority to conduct the foreclosure sale, and (iv) requesting that the Circuit Court rescind any foreclosure sale that might occur during the pending litigation. The property owner also filed a memorandum of lis pendens in the land records of the City of Alexandria on the same day. The following day the trustee performed the foreclosure sale and the property was sold to a third-party bidder.

Following the foreclosure sale, the property owner amended her Complaint. In the Amended Complaint the property owner continued to ask the Court to rescind the sale, among other relief requested. The lender and foreclosure trustee filed demurrers to the Amended Complaint, arguing that the Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which the Circuit Court could provide relief. The Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria sustained the demurrers and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The property owner appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The Court noted that rescinding a foreclosure sale “is a remedy which calls for the highest and most drastic exercise of the power of a court of chancery—to annul and set at naught the solemn contracts of parties.” The Court also stated that “[g]enerally, a court will not rescind a completed foreclosure sale”.

The Court did note that there are “potential exceptions” to the rule that a foreclosure sale cannot be rescinded. These exceptions include: (a) the failure to properly advertise under Everette v. Woodward, 162 Va. 419 (1934), (b) the sale of the property after the secured debt has been satisfied under Smith v. Woodward, 122 Va. 356, (1918), or (c) when the underlying debt was procured through fraud under Wasserman v. Metzger, 105 Va. 744 (1906). The Court also cited collusion between the foreclosure trustee and the purchaser, along with a foreclosure sale price of such gross inadequacy that it shocks the conscience of the court as grounds for rescission. However, it should be noted that absent any evidence of fraud, a foreclosure sale will not be set aside for an inadequate price alone. Squire v. Va. Hous. Dev. Auth., 287 Va. 507, 519, (2014).

In addition to limiting and clarifying the circumstances under which a foreclosed property owner can seek to rescind the foreclosure sale, the Court also commented upon the liability of foreclosure trustees, thus further clarifying a ruling the Court had recently made in Crosby v. ALG Tr., LLC, 296 Va. 561 (2018). In Crosby, the Court ruled that it may be possible for a deed of trust obligor to file a suit against a trustee of a deed of trust for breach of fiduciary duties not specifically identified in the deed of trust. However, in Young-Allen, the Court ruled that as a baseline premise to any claim against a trustee, the property owner must allege that she suffered actual damages and could have reinstated the loan in order to satisfactorily set out a claim against a deed of trust trustee for breach of fiduciary duty.

Finally, the Court noted that filing a memorandum of lis pendens is not sufficient to cause a trustee to forestall a foreclosure. The Court confirmed that a memorandum of lis pendens is merely a notice to the world of the pendency of a judicial proceedings and that, in and of itself, is not sufficient to prevent the trustee from foreclosing.

The Supreme Court of Virginia has, in recent years, addressed a number of issued related to foreclosure. Young-Allen v. Bank of Am., N.A. may prove to be a valuable tool for foreclosure purchasers facing a challenge to the validity of the foreclosure sale.

 

 If you have any questions about foreclosures or foreclosure sales, please contact John Rinaldi.