1. Plaintiff Jane Doe brings this action for damages resulting from sex trafficking. Jane Doe was trafficked to the United States and forced to work as a prostitute, mostly in Fairfax County, Virginia. At least some of the defendants, at the time officers within the Fairfax County Police Department (“FCPD”), provided security to the trafficking ring that ensnared Jane Doe, secured sexual services from trafficked women, and may also have extorted money from the ring’s leadership. During and after Jane Doe’s trafficking, high ranking officers within the department conspired to cover up aspects of sex trafficking in Fairfax, and the complicity of county police officers in the work of the trafficking ring, thereby becoming themselves complicit in its work to the point of permitting two knowingly highly compromised officers to retire quietly on pensions. The officers complicit in this coverup included the then chief of police, who was the policy-making individual for Fairfax County with regard to law enforcement, including the county’s approach to sex trafficking occurring within its borders. The result was the creation of a county custom, practice or usage of tolerating sex trafficking and suppressing investigation thereof over a period of time.the amended complaint is available here.
Wednesday, December 22, 2021
Wednesday, December 1, 2021
Saturday, March 13, 2021
WHAT IS zMOD? zMOD is
short for Zoning Modernization. Fairfax County’s zoning ordinance is
the law that describes permitted uses for various sections of land
(residential, commercial, or industrial areas, density of uses, building
heights, placement of buildings, parking, acceptable uses, etc.)
ISSUE: Fairfax County staff is rewriting its zoning laws. County residents were told that the modernization would not introduce substantive changes.
GET THE FACTS: The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has a lot to think about after the community spoke yesterday on why a one-size-fits-all approach to zoning is simply misguided! Reston residents, led by the CPR team, did a great job covering the key problems with zMOD and what it could mean for planned communities like Reston. Tell us what you think.
Right NOW, the Board of Supervisors are deciding if they want to make any changes to the proposal presented by staff.
NO LATER THAN SUNDAY NIGHT MARCH 21st
Please write to our Supervisor Walter Alcorn and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to let them know what changes you want to see most before their meeting on March 23, 2021.
695 pages of zoning language can be a daunting task to analyze. For example, the mandated zoning language, Article 9: 9100.2 "Must" and “Shall” must not be removed from the zoning laws that protects Reston's density (page 627 of zMOD).
Other recurring themes we see include:
- Proposals that change regulations without thinking through unintended consequences and without providing effective protections for neighborhoods from over-development,
- Proposals that nullify current regulations that protect neighborhoods from poor or unplanned growth,
- Proposals that promote the Board’s authority to modify on a case-by-case basis (aka spot zoning by special exception),
- Proposals that use administrative permits where now permits are currently required. Special permits allow resident participation in shaping developments in their community’s administrative permits do not even require notification,
- Proposed uses that are insufficiently limited in scope by ordinance language, and
- Inadequate provisions for county inspections or
enforcement where uses have a potential to damage communities, pitting
neighbors against neighbors and instigating disputes where none exist
Sunday, January 24, 2021
RCA Resolution Opposes Many New Provisions in the zMOD Proposal up for Board of Supervisors Consideration
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provision for an option for the Board that would remove the current requirement that someone on the property, either in the principal dwelling or the ALU, be at least 55 years in age or a person with a disability.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provision for an option for the Board that would allow the size limitation to be exceeded if the ALU is proposed to fully utilize the floor area in a basement or cellar, since basements with their own entrances effectively create duplex dwelling units; the ordinance should apply the size limitation to basements with their own entrances, unless they are to be occupied by family member(s) over 55 years of age or persons with disabilities.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provision for the Board to allow “zero to four customers on-site at one time and zero to eight customers on-site in any one day”.•RCA supports no more than 2 customers at a time and a maximum of 6 customers in a day, for all dwelling unit types.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provision that would allow a by-right display of 12 square feet of permanent yard signs for HBBs in residential districts, since commercial signage should be restricted differently than personal expression.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provision that would allow HBBs to obtain administrative permits for up to 21 days of Special Events in residential districts.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provisions that would allow by-right an unlimited number of Accessory Storage Structures with a combined enclosed area of up to50 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provisions for the Board to allow a by-right increase in the height of Freestanding Accessory Structures to 25 feet; the ordinance should include a maximum by-right height of 15 feet on lots under 36,000 square feet, and the Board of Zoning Appeals may approve a special permit for an increase in height.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provisions to allow HBBs in residential districts through administrative approval; the existing public hearing process should continue to be required.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provisions to allow ALUs through administrative approval; the existing public hearing process should continue to be required.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provisions that allow Food Trucks in residential districts through administrative approval, on pages 376-8 of the Proposal; the ordinance should include additional standards for days, number of trucks, location and distance relative to residential properties.
- RCA opposes the Proposal’s provisions that allow Special Events hosted by home-based businesses in residential districts through just an administrative approval, on pages 383-4 of the Proposal; the ordinance should include stronger limitations on commercial and promotional special events by HBBs in residential districts.
- Vehicle Storage limits (page 354) in the Proposal should establish that covering a vehicle with a tarp or fitted vehicle cover does not alone satisfy the definition of “completely screened from view” in accordance with County Code.
- Vehicle Storage limits (page 354) in the Proposal and Article 6 Residential Parking (page 509) should each include a limit on the number of vehicles regularly kept outdoors, with an advertised range of 7 to 9 vehicles.