Press Release:
Reston, VA October 29, 2015 - In January of this year, more
than 500 landowners and others concerned about the future of Reston
National Golf Course, a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program
golf course, rallied at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing in support
of maintaining the 166-acre tract of land as open space. However, in
April the BZA returned a decision that may have eased the path to
redevelopment. That decision will be challenged in Fairfax County
Circuit Court on Friday, November 6, at 2 p.m.
The outcome of this hearing will affect all properties abutting or near
the golf course. Home and business owners stand to lose scenic views,
privacy and substantial value and will face years of construction
trucks, dirt and noise in their backyards, and worsening congestion on
local roads. Our community may lose 166 acres of wildlife habitat and
scenic beauty. All of Reston faces the loss of control over its future.
Lawyers for Fairfax County, Reston Association and individual homeowners
and clusters (together, the Home Team) have been preparing an appeal of
the BZA’s ruling. Homeowners and clusters that are part of the Home
Team are represented by Randy Greehan of Greehan, Taves, Pandak &
Stoner, PLLC, the land use law firm that has counseled Rescue Reston
since 2012.
The loophole that the original RN Golf land use attorney thought he had
found when the investor-owners undertook this battle in 2012 has been
closed: Fairfax County has certified all documents. Therefore, if the
Home Team wins in Circuit Court in November, the investor-owners of RNGC
will have a much harder time achieving their goal of transforming this
treasured open space into anything other than recreational open space.
The legal effort to challenge the BZA’s ruling has been substantial and costly.
Right now, the key support required to keep this tract of land green is
to help pay the legal bills! The most recent brief filed on behalf of
the petitioners can be read at http://www.rescuereston.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/10-26-15-Reply-Brief-of-Adjacent-Owners-in-Support-of-Summary-Judgment-Motion.pdf
Many homeowners and other concerned individuals and businesses have
already donated this calendar year, but a surge of donations this coming
week will send the message that we will not be outdone by the deep
pockets of the golf course’s investor-owners, Northwestern Mutual. The
end of the legal battle is in sight.
Reston 20/20 is an independent Reston citizens committee dedicated to sustaining Reston's quality of life through excellence in community planning, zoning, and development.
Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label Rescue Reston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rescue Reston. Show all posts
Friday, October 30, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Date for Court Hearing on Reston National Golf Course Delayed until November 6, 2015
The following is the text of an e-mail sent out to the community by Rescue Reston concerning the RNGC case about to go before the Fairfax County Circuit Court.
In a procedural move, the hearing about potential redevelopment of Reston National Golf Course has been moved from October 23 to November 6, 2015.
Potential Redevelopment of Reston National Golf Course to be Heard in Circuit Court on November 6, 2015
In a procedural move, the hearing about potential redevelopment of Reston National Golf Course has been moved from October 23 to November 6, 2015.
In January of this year, more than 500 landowners and others concerned
about the loss of this treasured open space rallied at the Board of
Zoning Appeals hearing. In April, the BZA returned a decision that is
now being challenged by Fairfax County, Reston Association and
individual homeowners and clusters. These homeowners and clusters are
represented by Randy Greehan of Greehan, Taves, Pandak & Stoner,
PLLC, the Fairfax County land use firm that has counseled Rescue Reston
since 2012.
Lawyers for all three groups have prepared multiple briefings to appeal the BZA’s decision that may have eased the path to redevelopment. If the "home team" wins in Circuit Court in November, the investor-owners of RNGC will have a much harder time achieving their goal. The legal work has been substantial and you may view the brief filed for the petitioners on 9/3/2015 here: http://www.rescuereston.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-09-03-Brief-in-Support-of-Petitioners-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf and the brief filed on 10/8/2015 here: http://www.rescuereston.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Opposition-Brief-Appeal-of-4-15-15-BZA-Decision-RN-Golf-Corr-Copy-of-10-8-15_filing.pdf. The key support required now to keep our golf course green (and to ever imagine it as a park or nature center) is to help pay the legal bills. This litigation requires experienced land use lawyers who will fight to maintain our community’s open space, and retaining those lawyers costs money. Attorney Randy Greehan has given a generous discount on his hourly rate. Nevertheless, the bills are substantial. There is nothing at this time that supporters can do to help except DONATE to pay the bills. Easy ways to also contribute are listed on the right side of this email. Background In 2012, RN Golf Management (partially owned by Northwestern Mutual), asked for an advisory opinion from the Fairfax County Zoning Administrator in support of its view that it was permitted to redevelop the golf course with residential housing. The ZA responded that this was not the case, and RN Golf subsequently appealed that opinion to the Board of Zoning Appeals In April 2015, the BZA issued a confusing decision, upholding parts of the ZA’s decision and overturning others. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Reston Association and individual landowners and clusters, which are supported by Rescue Reston, appealed the BZA’s decision to the Fairfax County Circuit Court. The court will consider two issues on November 6: (1) the motions of Reston Association, the County and individuals/clusters abutting the golf course asserting that the BZA lacked jurisdiction to hear RN Golf’s initial appeal to the BZA; and (2) RN Golf’s motion claiming that Reston Association and the individuals/clusters lacked standing to bring a challenge in the Circuit Court. What are the Possible Outcomes? If (1) is granted by the judge, the cases will be dismissed and essentially we go back to ground zero as of 2012. BUT now that the County has located all the documents supporting the golf course property’s land use designation as permanent open space/golf course, which it did not have at the time that the ZA’s decision was appealed to the BZA, the likelihood that the BZA would reach the same result again in any future appeal is significantly diminished. This also means that RN Golf would be required to go through all the public legislative and administrative processes before any change to the golf course/open space uses could possibly take place. Such a move, however, would be unlikely because the Reston Master Plan specifically protects the two Reston golf courses as open space. Outcome 1 is a good thing! In regard to motion (2), attorneys for RA and the landowners/clusters expected this move by RN Golf’s counsel. They filed briefs with the court in October disputing RN Golf’s positions and arguing why RA and the landowners/clusters are proper parties, in addition to the County, to challenge and get reversed the BZA’s incorrect decision. Rescue Reston Needs Your Support! We appreciate how generous the community has been in the past. However, this litigation is costly and the legal bill grows. We need more businesses and individuals to stand up as major donors so that we can continue our efforts to save our open space from unplanned development. Direct donations and participation in the items listed on the right are your calls to action. Mail your donation to Rescue Reston, 2198 Golf Course Dr, Reston, VA 20191 or visit our donation page to pay by credit card. |
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Reston: Three for One, and One For All?, Reston Connection May 20, 2015
The Reston Connection provides a good overview of the three parties--Fairfax County, Reston Association, and Rescue Reston--pursuing an appeal on the Board of Zoning Appeal's (BZA's) nonsensical ruling on the RNGC planning and zoning case. Here is an excerpt from the article:
Click here for the rest of this article.
Board of Supervisors, Rescue Reston and Reston Association all filed legal appeals of the Board of Zoning Appeals April ruling regarding Reston National Golf Course.
Reston Golf Management wants to build homes here. The Board of Supervisors and Reston Association will appeal last month’s Board of Zoning Appeals ruling in Fairfax County Circuit Court. Photo by Ken Moore.
By Ken Moore
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Rescue Reston and Reston Association last week filed legal appeals of the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals.Reston Golf Management seeks to redevelop the 166-acre Reston National Golf Course property, while Reston Association and Rescue Reston want to preserve the golf course as open space.“We each [RA, County, Rescue Reston] have different specific pieces we may appeal, but appeal we must,” said Rescue Reston’s Connie Hartke. “As we said last week: ‘Letting the BZA ruling stand unchallenged will disadvantage, now and in the future, the County and the Reston community from being able to regulate and control redevelopment requests for the 166-acre golf course property and potentially other properties in Reston within the RPC/PRC District.” . . .
Click here for the rest of this article.
Labels:
Fairfax County,
RA,
Rescue Reston,
Reston National Golf Course
Friday, May 1, 2015
The difference between protecting RNGC and Tetra properties.
The following is a comment Terry Maynard placed on the RestonNow article in which Rescue Reston endorses RA's purchase of the Tetra property.
I am deeply disappointed that Rescue Reston (RR) has taken this
position and, in particular, that it sees the Tetra and golf course
properties as comparable. “At stake is our control of open space and
development in Reston,” they say.
That certainly is the case with the golf course where RR has been focused until now. The decision there concerns whether or not that 166 acres of beautiful greenspace should be converted into an apartment complex with thousands of new residences.
The legal decision hinges on whether the existing Reston Master Plan, part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, actually allows that to occur. The new Master Plan, to be approved in June, unequivocally calls for it to be retained as open space. The Plan, however, is just a guideline as developers like to say. And the case for preserving this space has been hampered by the disappearance of dozens of key documents that I don’t think disappeared inadvertently. RR has an uphill fight that all of us who believe Reston was planned to retain large open spaces like the golf course absolutely must fight for all our good, even if it becomes expensive. This legal battle will go on for years.
On the other hand, RR is wasting its time, our contributed money, and their credibility by endorsing RA’s purchase of the Tetra property. It shows they do not understand the different protections afforded the two properties. The Tetra property is protected by environmental and stormwater LAWS preventing lakeshore area development there, RA’s EASEMENT banning development in nearly all other areas of the property, and, yes, even the new Reston Master PLAN that calls for it to remain as built. It is a war no intelligent developer would wage, and the stupid ones would lose politically, judicially, and administratively.
I don’t expect RR to change its position, but I would hope RestonNow readers would understand the difference between the two cases and vote accordingly. A “yes” vote is a vote for irrational fear and gross expense. A “no” vote will prevent the waste of RA member’s assessment fees—and better enable RA to secure funds later if needed to buy the golf course—while the law keeps development at Tetra to its current level.
That certainly is the case with the golf course where RR has been focused until now. The decision there concerns whether or not that 166 acres of beautiful greenspace should be converted into an apartment complex with thousands of new residences.
The legal decision hinges on whether the existing Reston Master Plan, part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, actually allows that to occur. The new Master Plan, to be approved in June, unequivocally calls for it to be retained as open space. The Plan, however, is just a guideline as developers like to say. And the case for preserving this space has been hampered by the disappearance of dozens of key documents that I don’t think disappeared inadvertently. RR has an uphill fight that all of us who believe Reston was planned to retain large open spaces like the golf course absolutely must fight for all our good, even if it becomes expensive. This legal battle will go on for years.
On the other hand, RR is wasting its time, our contributed money, and their credibility by endorsing RA’s purchase of the Tetra property. It shows they do not understand the different protections afforded the two properties. The Tetra property is protected by environmental and stormwater LAWS preventing lakeshore area development there, RA’s EASEMENT banning development in nearly all other areas of the property, and, yes, even the new Reston Master PLAN that calls for it to remain as built. It is a war no intelligent developer would wage, and the stupid ones would lose politically, judicially, and administratively.
I don’t expect RR to change its position, but I would hope RestonNow readers would understand the difference between the two cases and vote accordingly. A “yes” vote is a vote for irrational fear and gross expense. A “no” vote will prevent the waste of RA member’s assessment fees—and better enable RA to secure funds later if needed to buy the golf course—while the law keeps development at Tetra to its current level.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Misinformation on Tetra property purchase from Rick Beyer, former RA Board President
Yesterday Rick Beyer, former President of the RA Board, sent an e-mail out to friends asking them to vote for the Tetra purchase and to further share his e-mail. It came to us eventually, and it is filled with half-truths and misrepresentations.
Here is the substance of what he said, and our inter-linear comments:
We suspect that a far more important reason for Mr. Beyer's pro-Tetra purchase position is that he lives directly across Lake Newport from the Tetra property as you can see in the map below. We suspect he may be more interested in protecting his view, his solitude, and his property value than he is in protecting community green space and RA's financial condition.
Here is the substance of what he said, and our inter-linear comments:
Press ? for keyboard shortc
Please don’t be passive on this vote – Please Vote Yes on theReston Association - Tetra ReferendumFour Reasons to Vote Yes· Unanimous Board Decision - By the RA board to purchase the 3.5 acres of property on Lake Newport and its beautiful facility for $2.6 Million; with an appraisal value higher than its purchase price; the facility would be revenue generating for Reston Association. This decision needs to be ratified by RA members.
The appraisal is NOT higher than its purchase price. The appraisal is the purchase price ($2.65 million) and the appraisal overstates the value of the property by about $1.4 million (the County assesses the value at $1.2 million) because it hypothesizes a mythical new 6,930 SF structure there that can't be built in the unrestricted area available.
While the existing building will like generate some revenue for RA (RA optimistically estimates $100K next year, escalating at 3%/year), Mr. Beyer completely ignores the operating and borrowing costs for the facility. In fact, the property will average more than $90,000 in LOSSES every year for the first 20 years at least, using RA's own assumptions extended to a two decade horizon. Total losses will exceed $1.8 MILLION over the period. Those losses will be added to RA assessment fees.
The Board's decision was NOT unanimous. Three members were absent and did not vote: Mike Sanio, Ellen Graves, and Lucinda Shannon.
· We Protect our Common Area - The 3.5 Acres of property on Lake Newport and its beautiful facility will allow Reston Association members to permanently solidify a contiguous band of 98 acres of common area and parkland for our community. We protect our green space and the community.
The Tetra property is already heavily protected by environmental laws and easements that will prevent development there. Virtually all of the Tetra property, including the current building, is protected from additional development or redevelopment by federal, state, and local environmental laws protecting the Chesapeake Bay. This includes Lake Newport itself and the first 100' of inland shoreline. Moreover, most of the rest of the property is under some form of easement, including RA's own parking easement for the Lake Newport tennis courts.
A near contiguous green space band already exists. Except for the roadway between RA's Brown's Chapel and the land it owns or controls for its tennis courts, the area is already protected open space.
· Reston Association is one of the strongest financially run associations in the country. The facility will be revenue generation for RA and the appraised value is higher than the purchase price. Fiscally, the decision is very sound.
The same argument and the same errors as in the first point. Price = appraisal; appraisal in more than double "as is" market value. Nearly $2 million in losses, NOT net revenues, over two decades.
· True Consensus – YES – Supported by both fiscal and environmentally concerned members. If is a rare opportunity to purchase green space that is revenue producing.
Again, the same errors and misrepresentations as above.
One further misrepresentation: This purchase is NOT supported by all the groups and people Mr. Beyer asserts support it. For example, Ms. Connie Hartke, President of the grass roots Rescue Reston group, sent this e-mail to members of the RCA Board (on which she serves) and others noting that Rescue Reston has NOT endorsed the Tetra purchase:
I wanted to make you aware of this email that is circulating and my response to the author.Should you hear anyone suggest that "Rescue Reston" has taken a position, I will appreciate you helping me with this misinformation, or send whomever my way and I will explain.Thank you,Connie Hartke
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Connie Hartke <conniehartke@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 5:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: A pro-Tetra email I received
To: Rick Beyer <beyer@edu-management.org>
Hello Rick,Please remove the reference to Rescue Reston from any future communications. We are singularly focused on the golf course and have not and cannot take a position on other issues. The views of individual board members cannot be construed to be support from the organization.
Best regards,Connie Hartke, PresidentRescue Restoncc: Rescue Reston Board of Directors
We suspect that a far more important reason for Mr. Beyer's pro-Tetra purchase position is that he lives directly across Lake Newport from the Tetra property as you can see in the map below. We suspect he may be more interested in protecting his view, his solitude, and his property value than he is in protecting community green space and RA's financial condition.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
A 1990s Virginia Supreme Court opinion sets a precedent for the BZA NOT to overturn the County Zoning Administrator's decision on preserving Reston National Golf Course.
In a 1992 Reston land use case, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled a decision by a lower court "that a zoning modification could be
made administratively and did not require approval by the county board of
supervisors is reversed." In this case, Fairfax County went to court to overturn a decision by its own Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that would have permitted Mana Krisnathevin--owner of the land now developed as Sunrise Valley Convenience Center (includes a daycare center, dental offices, jeweler, dry cleaner, bank, and maybe other retail)--to alter the basic County development plan for the area. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the County. The core of the decision was that the proposed change was "a significant modification" to the Board of Supervisors-approved development plan that required the further approval of the Supervisors, and could not be changed by a BZA administrative decision.
I think we can all agree that changing a golf course to a housing development is "a significant modification" to the current development plan. It will likely be an important consideration in preventing the BZA from ruling in favor of Northwestern Mutual's appeal of the County Zoning Administrator's decision to preserve the golf course. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruling does not, per se, preclude subsequent appeals by Northwester Mutual to state courts from altering a development plan.
In short, we can expect a BZA decision not to allow redevelopment of RNGC to proceed through the state court system, almost certainly to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Our understanding is that both the attorneys for Reston Association and for Rescue Reston have included this case in the filings with the BZA as it considers the Northwestern Mutual appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, so there is nothing here that all the appropriate County officials don't know. We believe, however, that the people of Reston also deserve to be kept well informed in a timely manner on this important ongoing legal matter without digging through legal documents on the County or the RA website where they may be found.
For your information, below is the full 1992 opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court. The first page or so provides an overview that may be sufficient for most readers.
I think we can all agree that changing a golf course to a housing development is "a significant modification" to the current development plan. It will likely be an important consideration in preventing the BZA from ruling in favor of Northwestern Mutual's appeal of the County Zoning Administrator's decision to preserve the golf course. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruling does not, per se, preclude subsequent appeals by Northwester Mutual to state courts from altering a development plan.
In short, we can expect a BZA decision not to allow redevelopment of RNGC to proceed through the state court system, almost certainly to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Our understanding is that both the attorneys for Reston Association and for Rescue Reston have included this case in the filings with the BZA as it considers the Northwestern Mutual appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, so there is nothing here that all the appropriate County officials don't know. We believe, however, that the people of Reston also deserve to be kept well informed in a timely manner on this important ongoing legal matter without digging through legal documents on the County or the RA website where they may be found.
For your information, below is the full 1992 opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court. The first page or so provides an overview that may be sufficient for most readers.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Rescue Reston reports on "what's next" in the RNGC Board of Zoning Appeals case.
Board of Zoning Appeals Decision April 15
What Will Happen Next?
We will win a major victory in the battle if the BZA rules in favor of
our County Zoning Administrator. Ideally, Northwestern Mutual, RN Golf
Management and their attorneys will accept “3 strikes and you’re out.”
The April 15 BZA meeting will start at 9 am and can be viewed live on
the TV Channel 16.
The losing side has 30 days after the decision to petition for appeal to the Circuit Court. This would not be a jury trial, although there may be oral arguments before the judge by the attorneys. The Circuit Court judge usually takes 6-8 months to release his or her ruling. Whichever side loses at the Circuit Court level may appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, which may choose to either hear the appeal or not (meaning the Circuit Court ruling would stand). It may be a year or more until we have a final resolution.
This means additional months of litigation and legal fees. Those who watched the January 21, 2015 BZA hearing know how often the filing made by our legal counsel, Randy Greehan of Greehan, Taves, Pandak & Stoner, PLLC was referenced during the 6 hour long hearing.
Rescue Reston needs to continue to be involved in the legal process to provide the voice of all who support the open space that makes Reston unique. If you own property adjacent to the golf course and wish to be a party in the appeals process, contact us.
We have until April 1 to submit more documentation for the BZA to consider. Randy Greehan will be present on April 15 to represent us. Whichever side wins, we fully expect the process to continue through appeals.
Rescue Reston is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Please click on the donation link at RescueReston.org to contribute to protecting open space in Reston.
The losing side has 30 days after the decision to petition for appeal to the Circuit Court. This would not be a jury trial, although there may be oral arguments before the judge by the attorneys. The Circuit Court judge usually takes 6-8 months to release his or her ruling. Whichever side loses at the Circuit Court level may appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, which may choose to either hear the appeal or not (meaning the Circuit Court ruling would stand). It may be a year or more until we have a final resolution.
This means additional months of litigation and legal fees. Those who watched the January 21, 2015 BZA hearing know how often the filing made by our legal counsel, Randy Greehan of Greehan, Taves, Pandak & Stoner, PLLC was referenced during the 6 hour long hearing.
Rescue Reston needs to continue to be involved in the legal process to provide the voice of all who support the open space that makes Reston unique. If you own property adjacent to the golf course and wish to be a party in the appeals process, contact us.
We have until April 1 to submit more documentation for the BZA to consider. Randy Greehan will be present on April 15 to represent us. Whichever side wins, we fully expect the process to continue through appeals.
Rescue Reston is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Please click on the donation link at RescueReston.org to contribute to protecting open space in Reston.
Connie Hartke & the Rescue Reston Team
Labels:
BZA,
Rescue Reston,
Reston National Golf Course
Rescue Reston Supporters Say “NO” to Golf Course Development
Reston, VA March 23, 2015 – 49 Rescuers braved a windy morning on Sunday to gather in front of the Reston office of Northwestern Mutual to spell out the word NO. Rescue Reston President Connie Hartke told the group that if the Board of Zoning Appeals rules in favor of the County Zoning Administrator on April 15, it will be 3 strikes and NWM should accept the word “NO,” meaning no to residential development of the 166 acre recreational space across the street from where they stood.
Northwestern Mutual (NWM) is the
majority owner of RN Golf Management, owner of Reston National Golf
Course. Twice the Fairfax County Zoning
Administrator has told NWM Attorneys that they cannot develop the golf course
into townhomes or anything other than open recreational space. “It’s time they
got the message,” said Hartke.
Hartke told supporters that the
#1 action they can take between now & April 15 is getting more County residents
to sign the online petition at bit.ly/RescueReston. The impact of over-development affects all
of Fairfax County.
Reston resident and Hunter Mill
District Supervisor Catherine Hudgins, wearing a Rescue Reston t-shirt,
addressed the crowd: “. . . the proposed Comprehensive Plan language continues
to support the use of the golf course as a golf course or open space. While
this has been a long and intense process, I continue to support the Fairfax
County Zoning Administrator’s determination.”
Virginia Delegate Ken Plum, also
a Reston resident had this to say: “Thanks to Rescue Reston volunteers for
working so hard to preserve one of Reston’s very important assets—its open
space. Your efforts are appreciated.”
Virginia Senator Janet Howell
sent her regards with this message: “Rescue Reston is an important voice for
preserving Reston ideals. We moved to
Reston to live Robert Simon's vision.
Protected open space is crucial to our shared vision. I commend Rescue Reston for its vigilance and
determination!”
More
information at www.rescuereston.org.
Contact:
Connie Hartke 571-205-8874, conniehartke@gmail.com
![]() | ||
| Rescue Reston supporters say NO to Northwestern Mutual's plans to develop Reston National Golf Course – photo credit Jim Kirby |
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Rescue Reston: Army of Supporters Overflows Auditorium, January 22, 2015
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
| |||
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Rescue Reston Statement Regarding the Outcome of Today’s Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing
Statement Regarding the Outcome of Today’s Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing
RE: RN GOLF MANAGEMENT, LLC, application #A 2012-HM-020 under sect(s). 18-301 of the Zoning Ordinance.
David Burns, Board Member & VP Legal Affairs: “Rescue Reston is optimistic that after the BZA has fully considered the record presented at today’s hearing it will uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to maintain the Reston National Golf Course as open space. We thank the supporters who attended the hearing to help present the community’s views as well as over 5,300 petitioners. We also thank the Reston Association for fighting on behalf of its members for open space. Our members look forward to a positive outcome, and to being able to continue to enjoy the golf course as an integral part of our community.”
For Interviews CONTACT:
David Burns, Board Member & VP Legal Affairs: “Rescue Reston is optimistic that after the BZA has fully considered the record presented at today’s hearing it will uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to maintain the Reston National Golf Course as open space. We thank the supporters who attended the hearing to help present the community’s views as well as over 5,300 petitioners. We also thank the Reston Association for fighting on behalf of its members for open space. Our members look forward to a positive outcome, and to being able to continue to enjoy the golf course as an integral part of our community.”
For Interviews CONTACT:
- Connie Hartke, President, Rescue Reston 571-205-8874, conniehartke@gmail.com
- David Burns, VP – Legal Affairs, Rescue Reston 703-581-5280, david@rescuereston.org
UPDATED: Massive Reston turnout at the Reston National Golf Course BZA hearing.
TWO UPDATES:
UPDATE #1 (2:45PM): The BZA voted to defer a decision on the appeal until April 15, 2015, subject to all additional materials requested being available by April1.
UPDATE #2 (4:10PM): RestonNow has a good overview of the extensive testimony at today's hearing.
The auditorium was filled with neon yellow Rescue Reston t-shirts and many more had to sit in the lobby area and watch the proceedings on TV when the hearing began at 9:00 AM this morning . . . and it is still continuing at 1:50 PM!
UPDATE #1 (2:45PM): The BZA voted to defer a decision on the appeal until April 15, 2015, subject to all additional materials requested being available by April1.
UPDATE #2 (4:10PM): RestonNow has a good overview of the extensive testimony at today's hearing.
The auditorium was filled with neon yellow Rescue Reston t-shirts and many more had to sit in the lobby area and watch the proceedings on TV when the hearing began at 9:00 AM this morning . . . and it is still continuing at 1:50 PM!
Labels:
Hearing,
Rescue Reston,
Reston National Golf Course
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Letter from Rescue Reston’s Attorney to the BZA, Rescue Reston, January 16, 2015
You may want to familiarize yourself with Rescue Reston attorney’s
letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). If you opt to speak at the
hearing, you do not need to talk about the legal arguments – our
attorneys have that covered. It’s more important that you speak about
how the redevelopment of the golf course would affect you financially
and personally.
Below are links to the letter and the exhibits listed in the letter. These are separate files because some of the files are quite large. Exhibits 9 and 10 contain the details of the argument from 2012.
Below are links to the letter and the exhibits listed in the letter. These are separate files because some of the files are quite large. Exhibits 9 and 10 contain the details of the argument from 2012.
- Letter to the BZA on behalf of Rescue Reston (4MB)
- Exhibit 1 (1.2MB)
- Exhibit 2 (520KB)
- Exhibit 3 (3MB)
- Exhibit 4 (4.6MB)
- Exhibit 5 (13.3MB)
- Exhibit 6 (2MB)
- Exhibits 7A and 7B (619KB)
- Exhibit 7C (432KB)
- Exhibit 7D (1.4MB)
- Exhibit 7E (534KB)
- Exhibit 8 (2MB)
- Exhibit 9 – RNGC attorney’s letter to Dept of Planning and Zoning requesting confirmation of their assertion that they can redevelop the golf course (1.5MB)
- Exhibit 10 – Letter from the Dept of Planning and Zoning denying RNGC’s request for confirmation (1.4MB)
- Exhibit 11 (4.8MB)
- Exhibit 12 (171KB)
- Exhibit 13, 14, and 15 (2MB)
MOST IMPORTANT: BE AT THE BZA HEARING AT 9AM, TOMORROW, FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Rescue Reston announces joint news conference with RA, January 7, 10AM, RA HQ, on Golf Course Re-zoning Appeal
|
|
||||
|
| |||
Labels:
RA,
Rescue Reston,
Reston National Golf Course
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










