Loudoun Again Postpones Vote On Home Limits

Critics See Intrigue in Delays

Tulloch is "completely offended" by the innuendo. (Tracy A. Woodward/twp - Tracy A. Woodward -- The Washington Post)

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors has again delayed voting on home-building limits in the county's rural west, and critics are questioning some board members' commitment to slowing the growth in homes, traffic and taxes in the state's fastest-growing county.

Late Monday, for the second time in as many months, supervisors agreed -- after four hours of emotional public testimony -- to postpone action on the proposal, this time until September. They said they had little choice after the county Planning Commission had unexpectedly agreed moments before to send the measure back to a discussion meeting instead of recommending it to supervisors, as almost everyone thought they would at the joint meeting.

But critics, including several supervisors who were ready to vote this week, said the Planning Commission's maneuver leaves them increasingly suspicious that a small group of opponents of the building restrictions is orchestrating the delays to protect -- or grandfather -- landowners who are rushing to subdivide their property before the restrictions take effect.

The critics said the individuals they believe are responsible for the delays are hiding behind procedural and legal arguments, even as they claim publicly that they support the stricter rules. These critics point to one supervisor in particular, Vice Chairman Bruce E. Tulloch (R-Potomac), who emotionally proclaimed his disgust with the Planning Commission on Monday night but whose maneuverings a month ago set in motion the evening's events.

"This was just clearly orchestrated by Bruce Tulloch," said board Chairman Scott K. York (I). "He got the votes on the commission to delay it."

Said Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run), who opposes the restrictions but who said he is beyond ready to get the issue over with: "This is not a series of procedural glitches at all. There are board members who are looking to vote to downzone western Loudoun but want to use grandfathering as a way to allow a bunch of people to get vested before it takes place."

Tulloch said he was "offended" by the accusations. He said that he came to Monday's meeting with "no idea" what the commission was planning and that he had no conversation with any commission member in the week before Monday's meeting.

"I am supporting the . . . plan," Tulloch said. "I'm completely offended. I can't believe that discussion's even being had. It's the most ridiculous discussion I've ever heard in my life."

At issue is a proposal to restrict home building in western Loudoun, a vast, 300-square-mile region of rolling hills, country lanes and large estates. Current rules allow homes to be built on parcels as small as three acres, but the new rules would require average lot sizes in most cases to be at least 10 or 20 acres. The rules would limit the ultimate number of homes in western Loudoun to about 14,000; current rules would allow 45,000 homes.

The Board of Supervisors and its Planning Commission have been working on the new rules for more than a year, since the Virginia Supreme Court threw out an even more restrictive set of rules on a technicality.

The Planning Commission recommended in March that supervisors approve the plan, but supervisors sent it back to the commission last month to buy more time. Under state law, supervisors have 90 days from the time the commission takes an action to vote on a revision to its land-use guidelines.

It was Tulloch who demanded that the plan return to the commission, even though several other supervisors were ready to vote before the 90-day window expired June 19. Then, as now, several supervisors said they were suspicious of the motives of the vice chairman, who came into office in January 2004 as pro-growth but has more recently professed his commitment to such slow-growth measures as the rural proposal.

"Unfortunately, we are caught in a trap here," said Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge). "The board could have and should have voted on this on June 16. We were prepared to do it, and then Bruce gave us this song and dance about process."

In any event, supervisors sent the plan to the commission with the expectation that members would rubber-stamp the proposal and swiftly send it back.

The Planning Commission is generally an advisory body only. But by a one-vote margin, the commission demonstrated its considerable power Monday night by sending the rural proposal to an Aug. 28 "work session" instead of forwarding it to supervisors for approval. Under state law, the board needs the commission's recommendation -- up or down -- before it can act.

Planning Commission member Lawrence Beerman (Dulles) said he could not vote in favor of the plan Monday because supervisors have made significant revisions since the commission last saw it. It didn't matter that the board was ready to vote this week, Beerman said.

"They came back to us and asked us to bless it again, but it's completely different," he said. "I'm an independent planning commissioner. I will take my time if I feel like it to make my decision."