A fourteen-question submission on the Reston National applications — now part of the county record. This isn’t about saving a golf course. It’s about whether the plans that built Reston still mean what they say.
I filed the following with Fairfax County yesterday (8/6). Here’s what it is and what it isn’t.
This is not a request to save a golf course. The golf course is the first project – the precedent setting event within Fairfax County regardless.
Fairfax County has governed planned communities the same way for fifty-five years. A development plan is approved. It says what goes where and how many. Everyone builds to it. In this part of Reston, that system authorized 1,123 homes. Approximately 1,137 were delivered and stand today — a variance of about one percent — along with two pools, four tennis courts, and an elementary school, all built between 1974 and 1978.
That is governed growth. Set by a visionary leader. It worked. It is still working. We’re entering Generation 2 for the country’s first planned community. It will continue to be studied in text books. The question is: will that study be for continued success or its demise?
The applications now before the county rest on an argument that would reach every planned community in Fairfax County approved before 1975 — every place where an approved development plan is the only instrument saying what goes where. Reston will set that precedent whether or not Reston is the point of the outcome.
This submission asks fourteen questions. Every one is anchored to a Fairfax County record:
- The County’s own 2012 determination for the previous request to develop
- The 1971 development plans
- The assessment rolls
- The 2015 Circuit Court order
I am not asking the county to stop development. I am advocating for the Governed Growth and the visionary leadership that built Fairfax County and Reston for the last fifty-five years.
That does not mean anti-development. We add amendments that evolve the Comprehensive Plan and the Reston Master Plan regularly. Governed Growth is the proven system. Let’s continue to evolve and lead Generation 2 for the next fifty plus years.
The full text follows. It’s a public record, and every source is cited so anyone can check it.
TO: The Planning Staff and Planning Commission
I am a Reston resident of twenty-five years and a licensed Virginia real estate agent. I write in an individual capacity, not on behalf of any organization.
This submission raises questions of conformance, governing authority, and record completeness that I respectfully request be addressed in the staff report. All documents referenced in my findings are county records; citations are provided so they may be verified directly.
This decision may have countywide implications, though the current application is in Reston. I am not questioning staff’s ability to analyze this project. I am sharing findings from my own review of the county record, and the questions that review raised.
CONFORMANCE
The Applicable Standard
Zoning Ordinance § 2105.1.C requires that development in a planned district substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan and not exceed the density or intensity the Plan permits.
What the Comprehensive Plan Designates
County staff stated the current designation in the February 2025 SSPA nomination summary for this property: “Private Recreation / Private Recreation, more specifically to remain as golf courses.” (CPN-2025-III-HM-028.) The 2022 Reston chapter identifies the parcels by tax map number.
No Comprehensive Plan amendment has been approved or is pending. The nomination filed February 12, 2025, was not added to the Board’s Work Program.
What the Approved Development Plans Designate
The development plans approved with the 1971 rezonings designate this land as open space:
- RZ C-135, Development Plan Sheet 3 of 5, Reston Engineering Division, April 14, 1970 — “PERMANENT OPEN SPACE GOLF COURSE”
- RZ C-281, Development Plan Sheet 3 of 5, April 1971 — “SOUTH GOLF COURSE — PERMANENT OPEN SPACE”
- RZ C-203, staff report — portions along the north and west shown as “open space in connection with the South Reston Golf Course”
Every residential parcel on those plans carries a specific unit count:
- 90, 30, 285, 38, and 300 on C-135
- 140, 112, and 128 on C-281
- 137 detached and 120 attached on C-203
THE GOLF COURSE CARRIES NO UNIT COUNT ON ANY OF THE THREE PARCELS.
The Plans Were Implemented
Those approvals authorized 1,123 dwelling units. Approximately 1,137 stand today, built between 1974 and 1978 — a variance of about 1.25 percent. The 300 garden apartments approved under C-135 correspond to 300 condominium units; the 140 townhouses approved under C-281 correspond to 140 townhouses. The swimming pool and tennis courts shown on both plans exist today and are operated by Reston Association.
(Unit counts and acreage from Fairfax County public property records; methodology available on request.)
Every parcel assigned a unit count was developed. The land assigned none was not.
Density
The February 2025 staff summary describes the surrounding context: the neighborhoods within the subject site are “planned for and developed with medium-density single-family residential at 6-12 dwelling units per acre,” and areas to the east and south at “13-20 du/ac.”
The current applications propose 306 dwelling units on 14.7641 acres — approximately 20.7 units per acre.
Question 1. How does the staff analysis address substantial conformance under § 2105.1.C, given that the Comprehensive Plan designates this land for private recreation to remain as golf courses and no Plan amendment has been approved?
Question 2. How does the analysis address conformance with the approved development plans under C-135, C-203, and C-281, which designate this land as permanent open space and assign it no residential density?
The Proposed Recreational Improvement
The applications propose a lighted multi-story driving range, lighted training facilities, a new clubhouse, a separate “Back 9 Grill,” a new entrance and parking, and rerouting of nine holes.
- In 2021–22 the Zoning Administrator determined that adding lighting to existing tennis courts at Barton Hill in Reston required a PRC Plan Amendment rather than administrative approval; the Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed.
- ZO-112.2-2025-15, effective November 19, 2025, expanded what may be done in common open space without a PRC Plan but expressly excluded “sports illumination lighting.”
- The same amendment added § 8100.5.A(1)(a)12, providing that active recreational facilities may not be materially changed except by replacement with a facility offering similar recreational opportunities and similar impacts.
- The Zoning Ordinance distinguishes a driving range accessory to a golf course from a driving range that is not, the latter being an outdoor commercial recreation use.
Question 3. Do the filings include a photometric study, a defined boundary for proposed night play, or a noise analysis?
Question 4. How does the analysis address the classification of the proposed multi-story driving range, the separate restaurant, and the new entrance and parking adjoining existing residential clusters?
GOVERNANCE
The County’s Prior Determination
By letter dated June 20, 2012 to Mark C. Looney, Cooley LLP (Receipt #2012-0536), the Zoning Administration Division determined that the property is subject to development plans approved with three rezoning applications — RZ C-135, RZ C-203, and RZ C-281 — each of which approved a golf course use; that the Comprehensive Plan shows the property as open space; and that redevelopment to residential “would first require an amendment to the Reston Master Plan … as well as subsequently obtaining both a DPA approval and PRC Plan approval from the Board of Supervisors.”
Counsel’s own April 20, 2012, letter to the Zoning Administrator identified the same three approvals.
Supervisor Hudgins reiterated this process publicly on April 3, 2017.
What The Current Applications Are Filed Against
The applications are filed against B-555, C-135, and C-281. No application has been filed against C-203, one of the three approvals the county identified — and the approval under which the existing driving range was reviewed (INTZED-8450, November 15, 2006).
The B-555 Assertion
The February 12, 2025, Statement of Justification asserts that the property is subject to four approvals, including “RZ B-555, approved in September 1966, covering 14 acres,” whose development plan “limits use of the 14-acre portion of the Property to medium-density residential.”
This assertion does not appear in the county’s 2012 determination or in counsel’s own April 2012 letter, both of which identify three approvals.
County assessment records for the three parcels comprising the golf course identify the Comprehensive Plan base as follows:
| Parcel | Recorded Area | Comprehensive Plan Base | Land Use Code |
| 11875 Sunrise Valley Dr | 48.2 ac | Private Recreation, RPC | Golf Courses (commercial) |
| (unaddressed) | 36.0 ac | Private Recreation, RPC | Golf Courses (commercial) |
| 2018 Soapstone Dr | 81.9 ac | Private Open Space, Private Recreation, RPC | Golf Courses (commercial) |
| TOTAL | 166.1 ac |
* All three are zoned PRC and owned by Virginia Investment Partners 2019 LLC.
The only parcel in the vicinity identified with RZ B-555 on county zoning maps is 11851 South Lakes Drive — 13.9 acres, Reston Section 50, Block 9, zoned PRC, Comprehensive Plan base Public Parks, owned by the Fairfax County Park Authority since 1979 and tax exempt.
Assessed Valuation
County assessment records value the three golf course parcels at $6,644,550 in land value across 166.1 acres — approximately $40,000 per acre. The 13.9-acre parcel at 11851 South Lakes Drive, in the same PRC district approximately one-half mile away, is assessed at $3,217,000 — approximately $231,000 per acre, or roughly 5.8 times the per-acre land value.
The Department of Tax Administration assesses property at its highest and best use under applicable land use controls.
Question 5. Which approvals govern the parcels comprising the application area?
Question 6. Where are the 14 acres asserted to be subject to RZ B-555? What does that approved development plan designate for them, and what density does it assign? Is there a surveyed legal description establishing the location of that 14-acre area within the application area?
Question 7. Given that C-203 is identified as a governing approval, is the application package complete without an application filed against it?
Question 7a. Does the difference in assessed land value between these parcels reflect the county’s determination that the golf course parcels are restricted to private recreation and open space use?
The Boundaries Of The Proposed Development Areas
The certified plat (Urban, Ltd., ZP-2235-3, March 16, 2026) describes a “PRC Area” of 14.7641 acres in two non-contiguous parts of 8.1733 and 6.5908 acres. These do not follow property lines, zoning case boundaries, or identifiable physical features.
Question 8. What is the basis for these boundaries, and is there a surveyed line establishing which portions are subject to which approval?
Prior Proceedings
In In Re: April 15, 2015 Decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, Case No. CL-2015-0006455, the Circuit Court held the BZA’s decision void for lack of jurisdiction and expressly stated that it “expresses no opinion on any substantive zoning issues in this case.” Final Order entered December 4, 2015.
The BZA’s 2015 decision was expressly “without prejudice to a later determination on that issue under 16-202, at such time as a specific application is filed.”
A specific application has now been filed. The conformance question deferred in 2015 is properly before the county for the first time.
STATED JUSTIFICATION
The Statement of Justification argues that the improvements are necessary for the golf course to remain competitive and that substantial infrastructure investment is required for its viability.
Question 9. Is the economic performance of an existing use a criterion in determining substantial conformance under § 2105.1.C?
OPERATIONS AND COMMITMENTS
The residential component generates revenue once, at sale. The proposed recreational improvements require ongoing capital reinvestment.
Question 10. Do the applications include any commitment to construct, operate, or maintain the proposed recreational improvements for a defined term?
Question 11. Do they include any commitment that the property remain in golf course use, and would any obligation bind a successor owner?
Question 12. If the Board were to approve, what PRC Development Conditions would staff recommend regarding construction sequencing, operation, and maintenance? (PRC Development Conditions were recommended and adopted in PRC A-502-06 in 2022.)
CONSEQUENCES
The Comprehensive Plan’s land use table assigns no density to Parks, Recreation and Open Space and notes that “density for these areas has been transferred to other areas in Reston.” The open space was not surplus land. It was the consideration that permitted density elsewhere.
The homes shown on the approved development plans were delivered between 1974 and 1978. The parcel at 11851 South Lakes Drive was conveyed to the Fairfax County Park Authority on September 4, 1979.
Development of these parcels is not reversible. A golf course may close and reopen; dwelling units cannot be removed. Amenities dependent on technology have a finite service life. Revenue from residential development is generated once.
The approvals at issue predate Virginia’s authorization of proffers. In planned districts of that era, the approved development plan is the instrument that governs the location and intensity of uses. A determination that such a plan does not bind because the adopting ordinance did not incorporate it by reference would reach every planned community in Fairfax County approved before proffer authority existed.
Question 13. Does the staff analysis address the countywide implications of the interpretation advanced in these applications for pre-1975 planned district approvals?
Question 14. Does the analysis consider that approval would permanently foreclose alternative uses of this 166-acre property, which the February 2025 staff summary places approximately one-half mile from the Reston Town Center Metro Station?
These applications ask the county to approve residential development on land its own records identify as private recreation and open space and assess as such, under an approval (B-555) the county has not previously identified as governing. I respectfully submit that the burden of establishing that authority rests with the applicant, and that the record should reflect how it was established.
I appreciate staff’s consideration and am glad to provide the underlying analysis or documentation on request.
Michele Hudnall
WHAT COMES NEXT
Before the September 23 Planning Commission hearing, I will submit the names of residents who want the county to know this is being followed closely. Not a petition — a record that people are paying attention to how the decision gets made.
This list is used only for updates on these applications and for that submission. Nothing else.
SIGN UP HERE · I’ll publish the county’s response when it arrives.
Michele Hudnall
Real Estate of Northern Virginia | Equity-First Real Estate Strategy
Life Long Northern Virginia Native | 25-Year Reston Resident | HOA Board President, Whitney Park East | South Lakes Drive
[email protected] | 703.867.3436
RealEstateofNVA.com | @realestateofnva
SOURCES
All records of Fairfax County unless noted.
Zoning approvals RZ B-555, Board approved September 21, 1966 · RZ C-135, Board adopted February 17, 1971 · RZ C-203, Board approved February 1971 · RZ C-281, Board adopted September 29, 1971 — including staff reports, ordinances, and development plan sheets
Determinations and prior proceedings Zoning Administrator determination, June 20, 2012, Receipt #2012-0536 · Letter, Mark C. Looney to Zoning Administrator, April 20, 2012 · BZA Appeal A 2012-HM-020, decision April 15, 2015, reduced to writing April 22, 2015 · Circuit Court Case No. CL-2015-0006455, Final Order December 4, 2015 · INTZED-8450, November 15, 2006 · Hunter Mill District media release, April 3, 2017
Current applications CPN-2025-III-HM-028, filed February 12, 2025, with staff summary · RZPA-2025-HM-00034, RZPA-2026-HM-00007, RZPA-2026-HM-00008 and associated PRC Plan records · Certified Plat, Urban Ltd., ZP-2235-3, March 16, 2026 · PRC Plan maps filed with the applications
Ordinance and Plan Zoning Ordinance § 2105.1.C, § 8100.2.F, § 8100.5 · ZO-112.2-2025-15, effective November 19, 2025 · Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, Area III, Reston chapter · PRC Plan Exceptions and Minor Modifications staff report, September 9, 2025
Property data Fairfax County real estate assessment records — Tax Map 0261-14-0009 (11851 South Lakes Dr) and the three parcels at 11875 Sunrise Valley Dr, 2018 Soapstone Dr, and the unaddressed 36.0-acre parcel
