Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Board of Supervisors. Show all posts
Thursday, April 13, 2023
Tuesday, April 4, 2023
WJLA News 7 Report: Jeff McKay caught driving recklessly in county car after attending a campaign fundraiser
FAIRFAX, Va. (7News) — Fairfax County residents have written to county supervisors complaining about how a county employee is using a county vehicle outside of business hours.
People didn’t know until 7News' reporting that the county vehicle belongs to one of the most powerful elected government officials in Fairfax County --- county chairman Jeff McKay.
7News is uncovering new information on how McKay is using his county car which is driving up the bill at taxpayer expense.
Months before McKay approved a 40% raise for himself, one person complained to supervisor Rodney Lusk’s office that a county car was parked at a community pool on a Sunday. She wanted to know why and she provided Lusk with a photo of the license plate which stated, “official local government use only” at the bottom of the license plate.
After consulting Chairman McKay’s office about the complaint, Lusk’s office didn’t tell the concerned woman the car belonged to McKay.
7News obtained another complaint to supervisor James Walkinshaw from a person who describes how a man was speeding and driving recklessly in the same county vehicle on Saturday, October 2, 2021.
The person told Walkinshaw’s office, “At approximately 18:25 on 02 October 2021, I was driving southwest on Coffer Woods Road when a vehicle suddenly pulled out in front of me from Wards Grove Circle, causing me to slam on my brakes. I was unable to get a photo in time while stopped behind this unmarked Ford waiting for the light at Burke Centre Parkway. However, I did notice an official vehicle plate. And despite the driver’s best efforts to flout the speed limit, I caught up to him at a red light on Lee Chapel Road at 286.”
The concerned resident provided Walkinshaw with a picture of the license plate on McKay’s county car.
“As a Fairfax County taxpayer, likely footing the bill for both the vehicle and the operator, I would like to know why someone lacking knowledge of vehicular right-of-way laws is allowed to drive an official car,” the concerned resident told Walkinshaw. “I would also be interested to know what official business this man was conducting on a Saturday night. Seems like someone who should be given a bus pass and Fairfax Connector schedules, at least until he can be retrained in the safe operation of a motor vehicle.”
Walkinshaw, like Lusk, also didn’t tell the concerned Fairfax County resident the county car belonged to McKay.
7News investigated what McKay was doing that night. 7News Reporter Nick Minock learned McKay was at a campaign fundraiser for Walkinshaw. Walkinshaw’s fundraiser ended at 6:30 p.m. McKay’s alleged reckless driving and speeding in his county car happened at 6:25 pm, .03 miles away from Walkinshaw’s political fundraiser.
Photo of McKay at Walkinshaw Fundraiser (Credit: Eileen Filler-Corn)
7News
obtained Fairfax County’s vehicle policy and it appears McKay violated
county policy by driving his county car to a political fundraiser.
The day after Walkinshaw’s fundraiser, on October 3, 2021, McKay held a fundraiser of his own with Congressman Gerry Conolly and Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe was running for governor that year.
7News asked McKay if he drove his county car to that fundraiser too, and 7News asked what other political events McKay drove his county take-home car. However, McKay has not responded to repeated requests for comment regarding the use of his county vehicle.
Through a public records request, 7News also learned McKay’s mileage on his county vehicle increased in the two months leading up to the 2021 election. 7News asked McKay if his mileage increased during that time because he was driving to political events leading up to the 2021 election. McKay has not yet responded to that question.
The Fairfax County vehicle policy states, “unrestricted usage must be authorized by the County Executive or Board of Supervisors in every case” for class one take-home vehicles and that class two “take-home vehicles are not authorized for personal use.”
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay. (7News)
7News asked the Fairfax County Executive, “Does the County Executive approve of how Mr. McKay uses his county car?”
“As County Executive, my responsibility is to manage the administration and operations of Fairfax County,” County Executive Bryan Hill responded in an email. “I have no comment on the political activities of any board member.”
7News followed up by asking the County Executive, “Respectfully, we did not ask the County Executive about his general thoughts on the political activities of a board member. We asked, 'Does the County Executive approve of how Mr. McKay uses his county car?' Mr. McKay has driven his county-owned car to political fundraisers/events, which seems to be a violation of county vehicle policy. Does the County Executive approve of Mr. McKay’s use of his county vehicle? “
“I have no comment on the political activities of any board member,” Hill responded in an email.
Although the county vehicle policy places the county executive in charge of supervising county vehicle usage, the Fairfax County Executive reports to Chairman McKay and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, unlike Montgomery County where the county executive is an elected position.
In Virginia, misusing public assets for private or personal purposes is a class four felony.
7News asked Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano if he considers McKay’s county car use a violation of Virginia’s misuse of public assets statute.
Descano’s office responded by saying that 7News will need to address that question to the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) since “they would be the ones to handle a criminal investigation.”
7News has reached out to FCPD for comment. 7News will update this story with their response.
McKay has not yet responded to 7News’ question on if he is violating state law by using his county vehicle to drive to political events and fundraisers.
In March, 7News also uncovered taxpayers are footing the bill for McKay’s car insurance, tolls, gasoline, oil changes, car washes, and more. And McKay doesn’t have to pay an annual car tax even though he sets the car tax rate for everyone else in the county.
Saturday, March 13, 2021
CPR Fights to Protect Reston’s PRC in Proposed Zoning Ordinance (zMOD) Presentations
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.
The Board of Supervisors need to hear from you
NO LATER THAN SUNDAY NIGHT MARCH 21st
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
now.
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 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.
Monday, April 13, 2020
Governor's comments on what government decisions should be considered an "emergency."
Comments from Governor Northam at his press conference last week.
"We understand that while everyone is focused on this epidemic, the business of government must be able to continue. Attorney General Mark Herring has issued an opinion that says public bodies in Virginia may conduct business of meetings electronically if the purpose of the meeting is to address the emergency. That includes meeting to make decisions that must be made immediately and where failure to do so could result in unrevokable public harm."There is no reason to consider county land use decisions as "emergency" as described by former Planning Commission Vice Chair Jim Hart.
"General Herring's opinion makes clear that public bodies should ask themselves is the action we are taking truly essential? If not, they should defer it until they meet in person again. We're not throwing out public accountability and transparency measures because there is an emergency. Bad policies can happen that way. The regular features of public meetings remain critical including the need for public access, proper public notice, publicly available agendas, roll call votes and recorded minutes."
Former Planning Commission Vice Chairman Jim Hart opposes Supervisors' efforts to "streamline" public hearings during the Coronavirus emergency.
The Honorable Jeff McKay
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 530
Fairfax, VA 22035
Re: Uncodified countywide ordinance amendment streamlining public
hearings
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I
understand the Board will take up tomorrow at 2pm an ordinance
amendment streamlining public hearings during the Covid-19 emergency. I
write to oppose the draft wording, which exceeds the scope of Attorney
General Herring's opinion, as well as the spirit of Governor Northam's
orders on the Covid-19 emergency.
Certainly
the Board must take up some "essential" matters during an emergency.
The budget, public health, and provision of emergency services are
required for the ongoing function of government. But the draft
amendment on p. 119 of your packet is so broad and flexible that it
invites abuse of that streamlined emergency process, and an expansion
into land use matters.
The defiinition of "Continuity in Fairfax County government" on p. 119 is so vague as to be meaningless. It includes, "without limitation," almost anything, including "applications . . . or other requests" and "measures that help sustain the County's economy"
which conceivably could be every land use application that causes
economic activity [construction, real estate, commerce, taxes, etc.].
What case arguably doesn't help sustain the economy, in some way?
There should be some "limitation" on the authority of a
supervisor, or the Board collectively, to approve anything, ostensibly
within this overbroad definition, as an essential continuation of the
function of government.
This
vague definition kicks in under D.3. (B)(3). As long as the Board
votes that the matter is necessary to assure "continuity in Fairfax
County government," a land use case goes forward. It is an open secret
that the Board members routinely defer to the district supervisor on
land use matters. Several land use cases on Tuesday's agenda appear to
be going forward for public hearing under the streamlined procedures,
apparently sufficiently "essential" in the supervisor's view, confirming
the potential for abuse of the Board's expansive new power, at the
expense of citizen participation and transparency of government.
Over
the weekend, I wrote several Board members, objecting to one example of
a non-essential land use matter on the Board's April 14 agenda, the
controversial "townhouses-under-the-flight-path" case in Sully
District. Although the ordinance requires the Board to allow "in
person" testimony now, under the new streamlining, citizens must instead
submit written or youtube testimony in advance, or call in by phone.
But if the speakers are not permitted to be present for the staff
presentation or the applicant's presentation, they cannot rebut anything
or correct misstatements, or react intelligently to the comments of
other speakers, part of the robust give-and-take of a meaningful public
hearing. Nor can any citizens conduct site visits now, to prepare their
testimony.
Land
use cases, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, are not
"essential" within the spirit of the Governor's orders. But if they are
mischaracterized instead as "measures that help sustain the County's
economy," almost any development application can be described as
"essential" under this overbroad language. This vague definition
invites abuse of the Board's power, to eliminate the inconvenience and
embarrassment of, for example, citizen opposition or MWAA opposition on
the "townhouses-under-the-flight-path" case, or other controversial
matters.
Transparency
and accountability of government must be maintained, even during
Covid-19. "Streamlining" the public hearing process with such expansive
powers goes too far, and severely restricts the citizen participation
on any case a supervisor wants to move forward during the virus
situation, in any district. The virus emergency is
no excuse to adopt streamlined procedures that facilitate land use
cases going forward without meaningful citizen participation in the
public hearings. Reasonable
limitations on the Board's powers should include some more specific
clarification of what matters, such as the budget, are truly
"essential." These limitations on emergency powers should specifically
exclude the typical land use case, even if in some sense it may relate
to the County's economy in some general sense.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue in this difficult setting.
James R. Hart
6504 Trillium House Lane
Centreville, VA 20120
jhart@harthoranlaw.com
Friday, October 25, 2019
Coalition for a Planned Reston: Community Action Results in Changes to Campus Commons Redevelopment Application
Six Major Wins for Reston’s
Planning Principles; Challenges Remain and Community Engagement Will Continue
Reston, Va. | October 24,
2019 — Consistent with the Reston Master Plan principle of
public participation in planning and zoning, Reston citizens banded together to
improve a flawed redevelopment plan by TF Cornerstone, for Campus Commons, located
in the Reston Transit Station Area (TSA) at Wiehle Avenue and Sunrise Valley
Drive. Among several reasons, the plan failed to gain community support because
it does not adequately provide safe pedestrian crossings and will add at least
6,100 daily car trips. Community members formed the group Save Our Sunrise (SOS) and joined with Coalition for a
Planned Reston (CPR) to advocate for improvements. The plan was
approved by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on October 15, but only after multiple
community-requested changes were made and follow-up resolutions approved,
including instructing TF Cornerstone to work cooperatively with the community
until the project is completed.
Changes that were incorporated into the plan approved by the Board
include:
- A 50-foot set-back between Sunrise Valley Drive and TF Cornerstone’s new buildings. This will allow TF Cornerstone to save some mature trees on their property and plant three rows of new trees.
- Reduction in the height of the commercial building on the corner of Sunrise Valley Drive and Wiehle Avenue from 14 stories to a dual-level building of seven stories closest to Sunrise Valley and ten stories closer to the toll road. However, the seven-story portion of the new office building will still be 99 feet high, more than five times as tall as the single-story homes across the road.
- A proposal to plant and maintain a row of trees in the median of Sunrise Valley Drive, subject to approval by VDOT.
- Architecture along Sunrise Valley Drive that will harmonize with the adjacent residential neighborhood.
- A wider set-back on Wiehle that will allow for new trees and more green space.
- An agreement by TF Cornerstone to be a Green Neighborhood, which stresses energy and environmental conservation.
”We are incredibly thankful for all the effort that went into
improving the Campus Commons plan. In particular, we would like to offer our
sincere appreciation to Planning Commissioner John Carter for his commitment and dedication to the Hunter Mill District,” stated Michelle Kimmel, a
spokesperson for SOS. “We want Campus
Commons to succeed and we are committed to remaining engaged to ensure our
neighbors can walk safely to the Metro, rely less on cars, and stay connected
to the community. There is much work to be done and we are ready to take it
on.”
Two key community
concerns remain:
- TF Cornerstone has proffered an ambitious 45% car trip reduction TDM program, but it still stands to add 6,100 MORE cars to the daily traffic load from this parcel, a fact stressed by VDOT in its written analyses of the negative impact of the project on congestion along Sunrise Valley Drive and Wiehle Avenue.
- TF Cornerstone still has no VDOT-approved way to connect pedestrians and bicyclists safely to the rest of the Wiehle Avenue TSA sub-district, including the Wiehle Metro. This is a critical gap, given written warnings from VDOT that TF Cornerstone’s two proposed crossings of Wiehle will significantly delay traffic along Wiehle and Sunrise Valley Drive, which are already gridlocked during rush hours.
In addition to
approving the modified redevelopment plan, the Board of Supervisors passed three
follow-on motions to address concerns raised by Reston Association, CPR, SOS, a
concerned cluster, and community members:
- Resolution #1: Launch a thorough examination of the entire Sunset Hills/Sunrise Valley/Wiehle corridor to identify ways to better coordinate sidewalks and improve connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.
- Resolution #2: Identify concrete ways to improve pedestrian safety and develop an enhanced, lighted street scape along all three streets.
- Resolution #3: Acknowledged the unresolved concerns of the adjoining Reston Planned Residential Community (PRC) area, and instructed TF Cornerstone to work cooperatively with them until the project is complete.
“These three resolutions are essential if we are to begin
resolving the challenges caused by the intense development in the transit corridor
in recent years that have had a negative impact on the daily lives of all
Reston residents,” stated Dennis Hays, President of Reston Citizens Association. “CPR/SOS and the entire Reston community look
forward to working with the new Hunter Mill District Supervisor, Commissioner
Carter, TF Cornerstone and others to ensure that these important proposals are addressed
as quickly as possible for the benefit of all who live and work in our planned
community of Reston.”
Note:
TF Cornerstone is a for-profit developer not to be confused with Cornerstones,
a local non-profit, social services support organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)