Solutions Drive in Tysons during lunch time for many has become a hub of good food from all over the region. Any weekday you can find a half dozen vendors, all with legal permits provided by Fairfax County, serving hundreds of happy employees at Monster, Redhat, Booz Allen, and SAIC ( as well as a dozen other firms not mentioned). Of course, often times, these trucks are seen as hurting other businesses.
So what is the solution (pun partially intended)? Is there one? Will the battle between established brick and mortar and food trucks ever end or will these small businesses remain renegades constantly flirting with police over whether they are or aren’t allowed to park here.
This past week Fairfax County police officer L. Brett acted to remove food trucks from Solutions Drive, a non-state maintained road as reported by Jonathan Womack in this article. The officer handed out citations noting traffic violations on a public road. You see, Fairfax County police have no jurisdiction on non-state maintained roadways like Solutions Drive. By providing a traffic ticket the office stepped out of her jurisdiction. It appears that police have been overstepping the legal rights of these food trucks to vend at this location because of a particularly obtrusive owner who is upset about their presence. In fact, Cassidy-Turley is the owner of the property, including Solutions Drive, so only they could request the food trucks to be removed (not fined for traffic violations).
The ones who are being hurt the most are the employees who want an affordable and quick food option right outside of their office. There are 115,000 employees in Tysons, I am sure that the restaurants still receive their fair share of this market too. The food trucks are not breaking any laws and are willing to be responsible vendors in the community. The office managers at SAIC, Booz, Redhat, and Monster should be raising their concern to Cassidy-Turley that their options are being arbitrarily limited.
— —
Update: Thanks to our loyal reader DL_Thurston we were able to track the parking regulations for Solutions Drive (Route 6054) and it turns out the police officer did indeed cite trucks incorrectly. There is no parking allowed on Solutions, and it is indeed a Fairfax County maintained road, but only the portion between the cul-de-sac and SAIC drive is no-parking. From the Cul-De-Sac to Greensboro is open for parking and the trucks are doing just that. As long as they hold a legal permit to vend then they are not legally allowed to be told to move.
Second Update: Also thanks to our loyal reader DL_Thurston, we are seeing the problem is really with an outdated ordinance 82-1-30 which disallows any sales of any time from street right of ways. Well someone better go tell kids who do car washes for charity, or girl scouts that they are in violation of the law. We will follow up with Fairfax County immediately.
Board Minutes showing parking regulation changes to the Ordinance
Municode of all restricted street parking for the County of Fairfax
The Ordinance Language itself Section 82-5-36. – Definitions applicable to Section 82-5-37.
For the purposes of the following Section 82-5-37, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section, except in those instances where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(1)
Local residential street shall mean a street which primarily provides direct access to residential property. The local street system includes all facilities not classified as a principal arterial, minor arterial or collector street. A local street offers the lowest level of mobility and usually does not serve a bus route. Overall operating speeds are low in order to permit frequent stops or turning movements to be made with maximum safety. Service to through traffic movement is deliberately discouraged. A local residential street is included within the secondary highway system.
(2)
Secondary highway shall mean any street so classified by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, bearing a route number of 600 or greater.
(3)
Right-of-way shall mean publicly owned land over which a roadway, including the paved area and shoulders, passes. (5-81-82.)
Section 82-5-37. – Designation of restricted parking.
The Board of Supervisors may designate, by ordinance, which shall be set forth in Appendix R, areas for restricted parking upon any part of the secondary road system within the County if the Board finds that:
(1)
Parking along any secondary road is damaging property and/or landscaping within the right of way limits; or
(2)
Parking along any local residential streets is so restricting the primary purpose of the road as to interfere with that purpose; or
(3)
Parking along any secondary road creates a safety hazard for pedestrian, cyclists, or motorists entering or exiting the roadway from driveways or for pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists traveling along that road; or
(4)
In the case of any street which serves as a boundary between an area zoned for residential use and an area zoned for nonresidential use on which parking is restricted on the residential side of that street which is zoned for a use other than residential would further the residential character of the abutting residential community, would facilitate the free and unrestricted vehicular travel along that street, and would promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the abutting residential community; or
(5)
The long term parking of vehicles diminishes the capacity of on-street parking for other uses.
The Fairfax County Police Department, through its law enforcement officers, shall enforce this requirement and shall issue citations to those persons who violate the provisions of this Article or Appendix R. Violations shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $100.00 for each violation. Vehicles parked in violation of these provisions may be towed at the owner’s expense. In any prosecution charging a violation of this Article, proof that the vehicle described in the complaint, summons or warrant was parked in violation of such ordinance, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such parking the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Code of Virginia, Section 46.2-600 et seq., shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner of the vehicle was the person who parked the vehicle at the place where, and for the time during which, such violation occurred. The Director of the Department of Tax Administration shall collect and account for all uncontested payments of parking citation penalties under this Article. Any contest by any person of any parking citation shall be certified by said Director in writing on an appropriate form to the Fairfax County General District Court. The Director of the Department of Tax Administration shall cause complaints, summons, or warrants to be issued for delinquent parking citations. (5-81-82; 43-02-82; 22-12-82.)