Land Use & Zoning

Represented a data center operator before the Frederick County (VA) Board of Zoning Appeals in connection with a successful variance request allowing the installation of additional backup generator and uninterruptible power supply equipment. The variance, which modified front yard setback requirements, enabled the expansion of critical backup power infrastructure despite site constraints created by adjacent interstate frontage and existing utility easements. The approval supports the client’s ability to scale data center operations to meet growing customer demand while maintaining the redundancy and reliability required for mission-critical digital infrastructure.

Advised on land use and development matters in Loudoun County, Virginia, home to the world’s largest concentration of data centers, and served as local counsel on more than $975 million in construction financing for a data center campus in Frederick, Maryland.

Assisted a major corporate client seeking a variance to develop an office property near a residential area. Our advice to emphasize the company’s importance as an employer was crucial in securing backing for the change.

Represent a non-profit owner and developer of a commercial project in Frederick County, Maryland that will provide a full service recreational facility and programs. We have represented the client in all phases of the project, from the property acquisition, title work, zoning, negotiation of memoranda of understanding with the County and County agencies, and represented the owner/developer in the bond and construction financing, totaling $21 million. The property has been vacant for many years and is now being transformed into a vibrant community resource for recreational, educational and wellness programs that will benefit and serve the residents of Frederick County.

Successfully represented a non-profit property owner in connection with its opposition to an application by the City of Frederick, Maryland for a zoning map amendment to place a historic preservation overlay (HPO) zone on its entire 40+ acre property. The owner was opposed to the City’s placement and designation of an HPO zone on the property because it would have greatly restricted the future use and development of the property and would have substantially increased the costs to maintain and operate the property. In addition, the placement of the HPO on the property would have had a substantial negative impact on the value of the property, which would have resulted in a negative impact in the non-profit’s borrowing capabilities and its continued ability to operate its programs on the property.   We successfully opposed the proposed HPO before the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen, resulting in the proposed HPO being denied.