A divided Loudoun County Board of Supervisors voted yesterday to start preliminary talks on a developer's plan to build a subdivision on county parkland in return for tens of millions of dollars in road improvements and a smaller park nearby.
Leonard S. Mitchel, a developer who also serves on a key state transportation panel, had asked Loudoun officials to sign on to his firm's application to build thousands of homes on the park site near Leesburg and an additional 1,100 acres nearby, where 80 homes are currently allowed.
Yesterday's board resolution, passed on a 5 to 3 vote after a series of tense exchanges, instructs county staff to negotiate terms for giving Mitchel the go-ahead to submit a plan that includes county land. The vote was an initial victory for the controversial Creekside proposal, which backers say is an example of creative problem solving. Detractors, however, say it is an audacious land grab and one about which they know very little because the developer has divulged few particulars of the proposal.
"This is just a first step," Mitchel said. "There are so many details that have to be looked at."
That absence of detail irked some supervisors.
Board Chairman Scott K. York (I) angrily called out from the dais to Mitchel, who was on hand for the vote.
"I don't know why, Mr. Mitchel, you're unwilling to come forward now and show us exactly what everything is," York said. "This whole thing stinks. . . . There's absolutely no reason to do this."
Supervisors also voted yesterday to clear a zoning hurdle that would have stymied construction of Philip A. Bolen Memorial Park at its current site. That apparently contradictory move was intentional, said Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run), who had offered the successful motion on Creekside's proposal.
"I want to see both of these running concurrently, so we can make the decision when the time comes," Staton said.
Supervisor Lori Waters (Broad Run), who abstained in the vote, broke from the rest of her Republican colleagues who voted to move forward with granting the county's consent. Some supervisors had argued that such a move was necessary to get needed information from Mitchel.
"Details of a proposal can be put together without us having to sign on a dotted line," Waters said. "I don't even know what we'd be subjecting our property to. It's not defined yet."
Waters added that Creekside also has applied to change the county's land use plans, which makes it premature to get into talks with the firm about detailed zoning questions. "It just seems kind of backward," she said.
Staton said land use applications are negotiations, and he saw no reason to delay getting to the heavy work of hashing out what each side would be willing to accept.
He added that if the county formally gives Creekside permission to submit a proposal involving county land, the county can withdraw its consent at any time.
Get paid for your H I P I M P L A N T troubles.>>