Reston Spring

Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Showing posts with label Reston National Golf Course. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reston National Golf Course. Show all posts

Monday, May 27, 2019

CPR sends important issue questionnaire to all Hunter Mill District supervisor candidates.


Coalition for a Planned Reston Candidate Questionnaire

Please answer each question and, if desired, provide explanations in a brief statement following all of the questions and answers.

1.  The Fairfax County Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject a proposal to increase the population cap in Reston's Planned Residential Community (PRC) areas to a number greater than 13 persons per acre.  The Board of Supervisors then voted unanimously to "indefinitely defer" action on this proposal.  

            Do you agree with the Planning Commission that there should be no increase in the overall density of the PRC?    YES___    NO____

2.  The Reston Master Plan specifically supports there being two full sized (18 hole) golf courses in Reston.  Fairfax County guidelines also call for at least two golf courses in Reston.  

            Do you support maintaining a firm and unwavering line on maintaining existing zoning laws that will ensure Reston has adequate open space, specifically to include two 18-hole golf courses?    YES___    NO___

3.  The Fairfax County Master Plan specifically emphasizes the vital need for citizen input on land use issues.  

            Do you support having a balanced composition (local private citizens and local business persons) to any task force, working group or similar committee dealing with land use and development matters?   YES___ NO___

4.  In recent years a number of development applications have requested and been granted waivers to zoning and other regulations and guidelines meant to promote safety, accessibility, and the quality of life and esthetics of Reston. This has resulted in the loss of open space, crowded roadways, noise and light pollution and unaesthetic buildings.  

            Do you support the elimination of granting such waivers as a matter of common practice and requiring strict compliance with building and zoning ordinances to preserve the essential nature of Reston and the remainder of Fairfax County?     YES___   NO___

5. A position on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is a demanding and time -consuming undertaking.

If you are elected to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will you resign from all other jobs and make the County Supervisor position your exclusive and full-time job?   YES___   NO___

6. One of the key concerns for residents of Reston and the Hunter Mill District more generally is the delay between the approval of developments and the availability of funding and implementation of planned infrastructure and schools to support the increased number of residents associated with the approved developments.

If you are elected to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will you support legislation by the Virginia General Assembly to authorize Fairfax County to more effectively maintain infrastructure in phase with development?   YES___   NO___



Candidate’s Statement (optional):


Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Letter to Supervisor Hudgins re CPR/RA-County Discussions of Reston Park and Open Space Planning

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Dear Supervisor Hudgins:

Thank you again for working with the CPR/RA coalition to help develop a better public understanding of the issues involved in the proposed Reston PRC amendments.  We appreciate your dedication and hard work on behalf of Reston and your making available to us the County officials most responsible for working on these issues.  We also wish to thank Goldie Harrison of your staff for her tireless efforts to pull everyone together at the same time and place!

On July 18th, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Athletic Facilities group met.  We began the meeting by looking for high-level areas where we had common ground and common goals, conforming to the Reston Master Plan.  This proved very successful and we had unanimous agreement that:
  • Parks, open space, athletic facilities are essential to the health, wealth and well-being of a community.  Open space has direct physical and mental health benefits, is environmentally key to having a safe and productive landscape and brings direct and indirect economic rewards;
  • A fundamental characteristic of Reston has been a commitment to preserve natural areas and integrate open space throughout the community;
  • Development will be phased with infrastructure;
  • High quality open space will be required; and
  • Public participation in planning and zoning will continue to be the community’s foundation.
We then set a framework for all subsequent discussion.  That is, all projects and proposals would be measured against four standards:
  • WHAT:  What project has been identified – athletic field, pocket park, open space, etc., including dimensions of each;
  • WHERE: Where exactly in Reston will the project be located.
  • HOW:  How will the project be funded; and
  • WHEN: When will the project be open to the public.
It was noted that if all four of these questions could be answered in specific, concrete terms, then we have an actual project.  If three questions are answered, then we have a proposal.  If only two or fewer questions are answered, then any proposal is still in the “wishful thinking” stage.

County representatives then gave an overview of their plans and proposals.  We should note we are aware of the bureaucratic, financial, legal, and other hurdles that must be overcome to bring in a new project and we are cognizant of the often frustrating amount of time involved in shepherding a successful project to its conclusion.  We appreciate the hard work, dedication and good intentions of our County officials.

The participants then discussed specific issues.

First was an update on how the Park Authority plans to meet the Comprehensive Plan’s call for at least twelve additional full sized playing fields in Reston, at least three of which are to be in Reston’s TSA zone.  The County officials stated they expected to meet this goal by upgrading existing fields with artificial turf and lights to extend playable hours and to acquire additional land as part of the proffers developers will give.  CPR/RA reps expressed some skepticism as to whether this all would actually meet the Plan’s intent, especially as it is not possible, according to the County, to exactly identify where new individual parcels of land will be at this time.  The CPR/RA reps requested the County provide as much information as possible in the form of What/Where/How/When and the County agreed to do this.  The math involved in computing the additional value of turfed fields raised questions and the County also agreed to provide information on this.  A CPR/RA rep and later a questioner from the audience noted the Reston Association’s Environmental Advisory Committee is not in favor of crumb rubber synthetic turfed fields due to health concerns and another filler would be needed if this activity goes forward.  RA seeks to be a leader in the County in implementing safer non-grass fields.  The County said funds had already been approved to commission an engineering analysis of the Baron Cameron Park playing fields.

With respect to obtaining additional land from developers, the community reps expressed strong support for the County taking a very firm line to obtain required land in Reston’s TSA (at least 3 full fields) and in Reston’s PRC (at least an additional 9 full fields or equivalent) in their negotiations with developers  The County representatives expressed appreciation for this support.

The next issue concerned Reston’s missing indoor recreation facility.  All parties agreed that Hunter Mill is the only district in the County that doesn’t have such a facility.  The County reps noted they had recently finished a study on athletic facility usage County-wide and needed to assess the impact of a new facility against other facilities, such as the Reston Community Center.  This line of thought was unconvincing to the community, as the new facility has been long promised and is much needed.   Again, the community reps requested a What/Where/How/When analysis of steps toward building the facility.

One of—perhaps the—defining features of Reston is the connectivity of our pathways, particularly the non at-grade road crossings that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel from one end of Reston to the other in a safe, efficient manner.  The CPR/RA reps asked why major new developments along major roads weren’t required to put in non at-grade crossings.  The development at Wiehle, for example, should have safe crossings of Wiehle and Sunset Hills built in.  Such crossings would also help alleviate traffic backups as the lengthy “walk” signals would be unneeded.  The County first made the case that separating pedestrians and cars was a bad thing, as pedestrians tended to slow traffic down.   This argument was rejected out of hand, with the observation that Reston has had two pedestrian fatalities in as many weeks along exactly these roads.  Next the County stated that ADA (American Disabilities Act) considerations made tunnels and overpasses unworkable.  This too was refuted, with an observation that other communities, such as Miami Beach, have inexpensive, all weather lifts for just the purpose of facilitating full usage of safe crossings.   Although no consensus was reached, the County asked the community to identify specific crossings that might have the right topographical conditions to support not at grade crossings.

Conversation then turned to the “Road From Nowhere” – the infamous middle of the night, unannounced addition of a road that impinges on the Hidden Creek Golf Course, the W&OD trail, or most likely both.  The community strongly urged the County to remove this road from all maps and consideration as there was no justification for it and the community was never advised of its inclusion in the fine print of a map.  The County rep stated this was a “conceptual road” that only might come into play if the expected redevelopment of Isaac Newton Square required it.   It was also possible the developer would have other options or might scale back development.  As for removing it, this would require an amendment to the Comp Plan.  Community reps again stressed the road could not be built without destroying needed recreational space and the County has never been able—or willing—to explain who put it there, for what reason, and why the community wasn’t informed of its presence.  The community reps encouraged the County to remove it as it is unjustified and will be a continuing irritant until it’s gone.

This discussion led to the issue of the golf course.  The Community expressed its great thanks and appreciation for the strong position Supervisor Hudgins and the County took to help preserve Reston National Golf Course.  The CPR/RA rep noted the Comp Plan identifies two open spaces specifically identified as golf courses and asked if the community can count on the County to provide the same level of support in defending both full (18 hole) golf courses as we have seen in defending the first one.  The County rep stated it is very clear in the Comp Plan that there are two golf courses in Reston.   This affirmation was very well received by all parties.

In the course of the discussions, the County reps explained some of the bureaucratic challenges they face and the often lengthy time needed to ensure all proper authorizations and approvals are obtained for a given project.  They also explained there is a difference between commitments and actual physical possession of a resource or funds.  For example, the County reps speak of $10 million dollars in proffer money to obtain and support recreational facilities.  However, there actually is no “money in the bank” at the moment, as these commitments are only exercised when a project reaches a certain level of completion.

The CPR/RA reps expressed some frustration with the vagueness of the answers given by the County.  Although the complexity of the development process is understood and appreciated, Reston has been around for a long time and some examples of recent successful projects should be possible to cite.

In conclusion, the CPR/RA reps again thanked the County representatives for their candor and willingness to help educate the public.  This meeting was informative and productive.  Moving forward, the County agreed to provide:
  • Information on the proposed turfing and lighting of existing playing fields in Reston, including how to mitigate safety concerns that have led Montgomery County to restrict new turfing, factors that led to a belief that significant increased playing time will result from these additions and a breakdown on the cost of upgrades and what designated funding source has been identified for each field;
  • Information on the status of current development projects as they pertain to the delivery of open space, parks, “urban parks”, athletic facilities, pocket parks, etc. to the community.  This information should come in the What/Where/How/When format.  As part of this, please provide a map showing all current, proposed and aspirational open space, parks, urban parks, pocket parks, etc. including park dimensions, amenities, on site parking, etc.;
  • Information on the status of the Hunter Mill indoor athletic facility, including proposed location, amenities, funding source, dedicated parking, etc.;
  • Information on the status of the commission’s work assessing Reston’s playing fields;
  • An explanation of the origin of the Road from Nowhere and why it keeps coming up in County documents such as the “Reston Traffic Analysis: Final Report” of March 28th, 2018.  Provide procedures to have road removed from all maps and any future consideration; and
  • Information on how the development of Reston Town Center North will address open space and additional parkland.
Earlier, in a letter from the Planning Director, the County proposed having a joint meeting of representatives from FCPA, FCPS, the Northern Virginia Park Authority, the Reston Association and any other entity with an interest in or control over land that could become additional park or open space.  We believe this would be most helpful.

The community representatives agreed to provide:
  • A template to list all the required information about park and open space, etc associated with upcoming development;
  • A list of possible locations for pedestrian tunnels and overpasses associated with new construction;
  • Public support for County efforts to obtain needed land in Reston from developers; and
  • An open mind and appreciation for the difficulties County officials have in addressing all these issues.
The group will reconvene when both sides have had a chance to assess the additional information obtained from the other.

Sincerely, Dennis
Dennis K. Hays, CPR Discussion Leader

Friday, December 4, 2015

Rescue Reston Press Release: In another Reston win, judge denies RN Golf's request to delay issue of Court order.

Circuit Court Judge Devine denied the request of RN Golf, the owner of Reston National Golf Course, to delay issuance of the Court’s order finding that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) lacked jurisdiction when it acted on RN Golf’s appeal of a County zoning letter earlier this year.  The Court vacated the BZA decision at a hearing last month finding that the BZA should not have heard RN Golf’s appeal because RN Golf had yet to provide a Planned Residential Community (PRC) plan. Earlier this week RN Golf asked the Court to delay issuance of its order implementing that decision for at least three months so as to permit RN Golf more time to consider alternative strategies, a request which was denied today by Judge Devine.  The County, along with Reston homeowners and the Reston Association, are opposing RN Golf.

RN Golf is in its fourth year of attempting to redevelop the golf course with housing units. RN Golf has maintained that it has the right to circumvent required filings and build housing on what the County has affirmed is permanent open space. In 2012, the Fairfax County Zoning Administrator rejected that assertion and advised RN Golf that redevelopment of the golf course would require the submission of a PRC plan, triggering RN Golf’s appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s letter to the BZA. With today’s ruling the Court requires that RN Golf, should it wish to pursue development, file a PRC plan with the Fairfax County Zoning Administer to determine compliance with existing zoning rules. RN Golf has 30 days to appeal today’s order to the Virginia Supreme Court.

The Court heard arguments today against RN Golf in three particular areas:
  • Over the past four years RN Golf had consistently pursued tactics of delay and previously sought five additional unexplained delays of a hearing on the BZA appeal which it had filed.
  • No PRC plan currently exists to be considered. Further delay was unwarranted.
  • A judgment allowing needless delay would set a precedent for future delays in other cases. The courts would be flooded with cases if every time an entity lost, they appealed for further delays of the court’s ruling.
Through its counsel, RN Golf has maintained a public position of having no immediate plan to develop the golf course. “We have no plans, we are just exploring our options,” Francis McDermott, a lawyer representing RN Golf, told TV reporters last January.  “If that is true…after today the entire case would be over. But, we have always believed they had a plan. It obviously would be unpopular to the community, otherwise why wouldn’t they have divulged it years ago. That plan and the particular process of circumventing zoning procedures would destroy Reston’s concept of a Planned Community,” said John Pinkman of Rescue Reston.  Mr. Pinkman is also an affected party and attended today’s court proceedings.

 “The affected homeowners and Rescue Reston firmly believe that the destruction of the open space/golf course, re-developed into housing would not comply with zoning or the historical managed intent of that land, that has been in place for over 50 years,” Mr. Pinkman concluded.

Parties to the proceedings do not expect the controversy to be resolved by today’s ruling. “We fully expect RN Golf Management, LLC to continue its attempts to invade our open space. Rescue Reston will remain vigilant and take all steps necessary to prevent that from happening. We will continue to raise legal defense funds and assist the County, RA and Reston homeowners in any possible manner,” said Connie Hartke, President of Rescue Reston.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

RNGC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion; Win for Preservation of Open Space

November 6, 2015--Reston, VA--The Fairfax County Circuit Court today granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Fairfax County. As a result of this decision, RN Golf, the owner of the golf course, would have to file a formal plan with the county in order to pursue any proposed redevelopment of the golf course. RN Golf had based its case on a letter from the county zoning administrator which the court in effect found was merely an advisory opinion and was not appealable. In light of its ruling, the court vacated the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals from earlier this year and dismissed other motions of the various parties as moot.

Connie Hartke, President of Rescue Reston, a group comprised of citizen volunteers who oppose any re-development of the golf course said “We are pleased with the court’s ruling which requires that RN Golf must go through a formal plan process before it can re-develop the golf course. However, while we have won this round, the fight is not over and RN Golf still has other options available to it including appealing today’s ruling or attempting to amend the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. We must remain prepared to continue the fight so long as RN Golf remains committed to its attempts to destroy our community’s valuable open space.”

Friday, October 30, 2015

RNGC Press Release: Potential Redevelopment of RNGC

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.

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.

 
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.

 

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Reston 2020 Letter to the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Reston Master Plan


Dear Chairman Bulova, Hunter Mill District Supervisor Hudgins, and Members of the Board of Supervisors,

The RCA Reston 2020 Committee has been deeply involved in the development of Phase 2 of the Reston Master Plan, the portion of the plan that provides guidance for the redevelopment of the areas in Reston where virtually all Restonians live.  It is, in essence, proposed guidance on the redevelopment of our neighborhoods, maybe even our individual homes, and our village centers; in short, our way of life. 
 
Reston 2020 believes the draft plan amendment generally serves the existing Reston residential community well, but with some important exceptions we have detailed to the County staff on at least two occasions.  (Please see our initial ideas for Phase 2, comments on draft Version 2, and specific comments on the Reston Land Use Map.)  Nonetheless, we believe there are substantial shortcomings regarding the redevelopment of village centers and protecting open space in this Phase 2 of the draft plan language and the changes made by the Planning Commission.  We urge the Board of Supervisors, and Supervisor Hudgins in particular, to read and address the concerns we describe below along the lines we suggest. 
 
Village Centers:  In our view, the most significant shortcomings of the draft plan appear in the section dealing with village centers. 
 
Maybe the biggest one is that the draft plan puts no limits on the density of redevelopment in these critical elements of the Reston community.  The plan’s failure to limit density (we recommended a density of FAR 1.0, four times the current limit) could result in extremely dense commercial, office, or residential development (or all of the above) in the village centers that would be totally inappropriate for a neighborhood-serving center.  The absence of a reasonable density restriction could easily lead to the situation we are about to see in Town Center North where plans to build a 23-story office building beyond the high-density ½-mile transit station area (TSA)—and twice as tall as the adjoining new Spectrum Center--were approved by the Board because there was no density restriction.  Indeed, during Phase 1 of the Master Plan Review, the Vision Committee discussed 18-20 story buildings in the village centers.  Thus, very tall buildings are a distinct possibility. 
 
Although we have proposed a limit on density to the Planning staff at least twice, we have been told that none of the owners yet have plans to redevelop their village centers (excluding the approved plan for Lake Anne).  We believe a County-approved plan should guide any future proposals, not the other way around.  We believe the Board of Supervisors should make it clear now that such oversized construction is unacceptable by specifying a reasonable maximum density constraint. 
 
Also in the village centers, the Planning Commission struck the possibility of a green open space—a park-like setting--as an option for the “gathering place” for the neighborhood, leaving only “plazas” as an option for these focal points of each center.  We believe the green open space option should be re-inserted because we have not seen the brick (Lake Anne), concrete (Hunters Woods, South Lakes, & North Point), or other potential hardscapes attract a gathering.  The concrete “plazas” at South Lakes and North Point have limited steel seating and tables for people to use, which are absolutely unbearable in Reston’s summers except in the late evening and early morning.  Green open spaces would actually help cool the gathering space and, frankly, be much more attractive. 
 
The Planning Commission also chose to abandon its historic role to review redevelopment proposals for village centers, striking out the final step in the approval process before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.  The County Planning staff also rejected several suggestions we provided on how to constructively constrain village center redevelopment proposals to the "neighborhood-serving" needs they are supposed to serve. 
  • The County Planning staff rejected redevelopment plan language from Reston 2020 calling for Reston community entities (RP&Z, RA DRB) and neighbors to play a key role in redevelopment plan reviews. Please see our comments on Version 2.
  • The staff also rejected Reston 2020’s distinction between redevelopment of the “mixed-use areas” of the village centers and their “residential areas,” thereby subjecting existing residents to the threat of redevelopment.  This is addressed in both our original set of ideas and in our comments on Version 2 linked above. 
  • Staff language also allows the expansion of village centers beyond their current boundaries if it would be “essential to the successful development of any particular village center.” We do not believe there are any circumstances in which village center boundaries should be expanded.
In short, the draft plan provides no protection from excessive and inappropriate redevelopment for existing village centers or nearby neighborhoods.  The draft language treats village centers residents and adjoining neighborhoods like second-class citizens in the Reston community.  More broadly, these failures shortchange the community and residents and businesses in the village centers as well as neighbors nearby who will have fewer opportunities to have their voices heard on redevelopment plans. 
 
The Planning Commission's proposed change to the plan's language is an especially peculiar change given that Reston is a planned community and we believe a change in the community’s land use ought to be reviewed by both local community entities and the Planning Commission.  In general, we view these Planning Commission Master Plan recommendations as part of the broader County effort to reduce community participation and facilitate the development and redevelopment process through the “Fairfax Forward” land use decision making process adopted last year, a process that goes well beyond planning issues in Reston to shortchange communities and neighbors from commenting on the effects of high-density development proposals. 
 
In fact, the Planning Commission went so far as to essentially recommend approval of the Jefferson Apartment Group’s Tall Oaks Village Center redevelopment plan and the St. Johns Woods apartment complex proposal, which have not yet been presented to any Reston or County group for endorsement or approval, only for “information purposes.”  And those plans are still evolving. 
 
Reston’s Open Space:  There are two significant shortcomings inserted by the Planning Commission on Reston’s open space as well as a few improvements.  We believe that Reston’s open spaces must be preserved and, if feasible, expanded to accommodate the planned doubling of our population and employment in the decades ahead. 
 
The Planning Commission dropped language designating the Sunrise Valley Wetlands as a “Nature Park” throughout the draft plan.  This cuts language already approved by the Board of Supervisors during Phase 1 of the Reston Master Plan effort.  If adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the change would eliminate any shred of protection for the wetlands—a vital environmental resource protected by the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act—in the Master Plan from future commercial redevelopment.    We believe the wetlands should become a publicly-held County resource. 
 
The Planning Commission specifically rejected language and related mapping that would identify existing open space in condominiums and clusters.  The impact of this change if adopted would be to substantially reduce the expectation that this (or comparably sized and equipped) open space would be preserved in a redevelopment effort—which would no doubt include several times as many housing units. 

That said, we appreciate the effort of the County Planning staff and the Planning Commission in updating and correcting the Reston Land Use Map with the exception cited above.  It is an integral part of the plan and is vital in making sure development proposals are consistent with the plan’s intent.
 
We also appreciate the steps taken by the Staff and the Commission to insure the accuracy and completeness of the property plats covered by the Reston National Golf Course as well as Hidden Creek Country Club—and striving to ensure their protection as open space.  We all know that the RNGC property’s use is in dispute, and every step taken by the County to protect it is deeply appreciated. 

We all want to move forward in achieving the goals and principles of the revised Reston Master Plan in a way that preserves the quality of life of all who live or work here, now and in the future.   That requires a careful balance of opportunities for redevelopment and preservation of the characteristics that make Reston a unique planned community. 
 
We look forward to your favorable consideration of these proposed changes in the draft Reston Master Plan language.



Sincerely, 
Terry Maynard
Co-Chairman
Reston 2020 Committee
Reston Citizens Association


cc: 
RCA Board of Directors
RA Board Chairman and CEO
Rescue Reston Board
Local media

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:

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.
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.
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.

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.

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Zoning the Good Life: The Proposed Reston National Golf Course Redevelopment, PoshSeven,

Since the 1970s, the Reston National Golf Course has been a Mecca for locals who want to get a little closer to the natural world.
When the weather’s nice (and sometimes when it’s not), golf enthusiasts tee off on the well-manicured green or take practice swings on the driving range. Other visitors to the 166-acre course – the open grounds of which are a certified Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary – jog down winding walkways, hike through briar patches, or relax by a pond and look out for birds and other local wildlife. Now, the golf course’s fate may hinge on a zoning technicality. . .
RN Golf Management LLC (a subsidiary of Northwestern Mutual)first proposed its plan to build residences on the site of the course in 2012. They met powerful opposition from residents and community groups, including the Reston Association. The grassroots activist group Rescue Reston was founded specifically to oppose the redevelopment. The Fairfax County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruled that any residential development would require changes to the Fairfax County Comprehensive plan. This ruling did not outright forbid the development, but it would make development a whole lot harder. RN Gold Management LLC appealed the ruling and asked for more time to prepare their appeal.
If the ruling is not overturned, RN Golf Management LLC would have to rezone the property in order to build. . . .
Click here to read the rest of this article.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Reston National Golf Course BZA Appeal Materials

UPDATE:  We have added the Rescue Reston attorney's April 1, 2015, follow-up letter to this compendium.  It's conclusion, provided below provides an excellent overview for rejecting Northwestern Mutual's application.  To simplify posting, we have not added links to the exhibits in the earlier Rescue Reston attorney's letter, but they are available by clicking on this link to their original letter to the BZA

We have also posted a link to the County Zoning Administrator's April 7 follow-up letter to its April 1 letter as the second bullet link in this series. 

The several parties striving to retain Reston National Golf Course in its current use as opposed to Northwestern Mutual's attorneys perverse interpretation of its current zoning to allow redevelopment as a 166 acres of medium density residential development have submitted their materials to the County.  These materials include:
  •  A letter from the County Zoning Administrator provides a 20-page memorandum supporting her determination that RNGC needed to be preserved as open space and that nothing in the County's planning and zoning suggests that it could be come a residential development.  She concludes:
Staff has provided substantial evidence, including staff reports, Planning Commission public hearing meeting minutes, Board hearing legal notices, and Board hearing meeting  minutes to support the conclusion that the development plans found in the County Archive  files are in fact the development plans that were reviewed and approved by the Board in  1971 for rezoning applications RZ C-135, RZ C-203, and RZ C-281. These approved  development plans show the appeal property clearly designated as a golf course and/or  open space, only, as distinguished from the surrounding properties that have residential designations including low, medium, or high density designations, as is required for residential development approvals in the PRC District. . . The appellant has not
provided any evidence that demonstrates that the approved development plans are not valid.
Staff has also clearly demonstrated that the appeal property is designated on the Reston Master Plan's Land Use Plan map as "Open Space," and on the Reston Master Plan's Community Facilities Plan map as "Major Open Space, Parks, Golf Course, Nature Center." This designation has remained consistent since first approved in conjunction with the original rezonings on the property in 1971, as discussed above. . . .
Staff has also demonstrated through legal precedent and analysis of the Zoning Ordinance text in effect at the time of the rezoning approvals that neither incomplete or  vague compliance letters nor mistakes on subdivision plat density tabulation charts can  override zoning approvals and impart a use designation that was not granted by the  Board. 
  •  A letter from RA by its attorney, John McBride, that takes note of the incompleteness of Country records (in particular, missing files from the County and the Reston Museum), but notes the relevant law (including the Krisnavethin decision posted here) and refutes arguments by Reston National (Northwestern Mutual's stalking horse subsidiary), concluding:  "Should the County's on-site zoning files have been more complete? Absolutely. Can the fact that they were not complete be used to amend or change a Development Plan that the Board legislatively approved? Absolutely not. Only the Board of Supervisors can do that, after due notice and public hearings."  The six-page letter has 15 pages of supporting documentation.
For the reasons stated above, those set forth in Rescue Reston's January 5, 2015, submission, and those argued by Rescue Reston and the County  Zoning staff, Ms. Belgin's June 20, 2012, determination should be affirmed  by the BZA. The golf course property has always been intended to be used  and approved for golf course and open space uses, not residential uses.
This is borne out by the development plans; the Reston Master Plan and the County's Comprehensive Plan; legal advertisements, zoning applications and statements of justification for C-135, C-203 and C-281; zoning  compliance letters for the golf course property; and other documents. It was also borne out in the letters, emails and testimony before the BZA on
January 21, 2015, of members of the Reston community, including many among the 5,900 supporters of Rescue Reston, who voiced their opinions and concerns regarding the protection of their property rights and the values of their homes, as well as the importance and integrity of the Reston Master Plan and its intended impact upon development in Reston.
Before residential use can be authorized on the golf course property, it is clear that amendments by the Board of Supervisors to the Comprehensive Plan and to the approved development plans, along with the approval of a new PRC plan, are required. Therefore, RN Golf's Appeal Application A 2012-HM-020 should denied by the BZA.
And, oh yeah, Northwestern Mutual's attorneys, Frank McDermott and Mark Looney, have provided their own appeal to the BZA to reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision to keep RNGC as open space.  Here's their summary claim:
. . . Yet all conclusions drawn by the Opposition (Comment:  the Zoning Administrator) flow from the assumption that the Alleged Development Plans are "approved".
Also flowing from that underlying assumption are several confused, conflicting arguments posited, variously, by the Opposition. . . Thus, the Catch 22, the mousetrap offered by the Opposition.
We would submit that trying to confuse the issue (as McDermott and Looney go to great lengths to do in their 9-page memo) is not a rational argument for a decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator's determination (or anything else), but rather an attempt to hide the weakness of one's own case.