Loudoun To Restrict Growth

Board Votes 5-4 For Compromise

Loudoun County supervisors yesterday approved a far-reaching plan to restrict home building in the county's rural west, taking the first step toward guiding long-term growth in the region's fastest-growing jurisdiction.

The guidelines adopted last night by a 5 to 4 vote replace similar rules struck down last year by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican majority on the board opted for a less-restrictive compromise than they had been considering in recent months. They did so against the advice of County Attorney John R. Roberts, who said the changes could imperil the measure if it is challenged in court.

About 90 minutes after the vote, the board decided to delay implementation of the plan to address the legal questions raised by the compromise.

Nonetheless, yesterday's action, if it stands up in court, ultimately could reduce the number of homes that could be built in the west from 37,000 to roughly half that. It puts Loudoun at the forefront of regional efforts to guide growth as Washington's booming suburbs are increasingly snarled in traffic, struggling with soaring property taxes and losing their remaining open space to sprawl. It would minimize potential growth in population, traffic and demand for government services. And it would help preserve a pastoral, 300-square-mile area of open farmland, large estates and undisturbed views of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

"We struck a compromise that allows people to do something with their land," said Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R-Dulles), perhaps the board's leading opponent of growth controls.

Said Vice Chairman Bruce E. Tulloch (R-Potomac), "We just voted for the largest cuts in density in this county's history."

Still, those cuts will not take effect until some of the legal issues are ironed out. Late last night, the board voted to put out a new public notice with the exact wording of the compromise to help guard against a legal challenge. That means that the soonest the plan could be implemented is late November or early December.

Even with the delay, the vote redefines a Republican-dominated board that came into office two years ago with promises to impose fewer building restrictions than previous supervisors. But an unlikely coalition of landowners from the open western part of the county and some from the built-up suburban east have placed relentless pressure on the board all summer to approve restrictions. In the end, those supervisors most ardently opposed to growth restrictions sealed yesterday's vote.

The new rules would limit growth in Loudoun's western two-thirds by requiring homes to be built on relatively large lot sizes -- at least five or 10 acres, depending on the location. Zoning in place since the state Supreme Court ruling allowed average parcels of three acres or more, thus allowing more homes.

Last night's compromise angered the slow-growth faction on the board. Those members accused those who introduced the plan Tuesday of trying to get the restrictions nullified in court. That's because the language in the compromise differs from the wording advertised in public notices.

It was just such a technicality that caused the Supreme Court to toss out a similar set of restrictions last year, ruling that the plan had not been properly advertised.

"This has been a farce, an absolute farce," said Supervisor James G. Burton (I-Blue Ridge). "It has been structured this way, and the decision has been put before the board in this manner so that it will fail a legal challenge." Burton led the successful fight to put out the new public notices.

Critics of the compromise also accused its supporters of political expedience -- of voting for a watered-down plan so they could tell voters next year that they supported growth restrictions. The compromise differs from the original proposal by reducing average lot sizes from 10 and 20 acres to five and 10. It also eliminates a requirement that developers pay the county cash proffers in exchange for the right to build more homes.

"It just seems to me that this is an effort to create some sort of compromise to get votes," said Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who supported the original plan but not the compromise. "I have a hard time making public policy in that way."

Supporters noted that the compromise allows only about 4,000 more homes than the original proposal favored by slow-growth advocates. They also said the compromise is more likely, not less, to withstand a legal challenge.

Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run), who authored the compromise, said it's ridiculous to think his purpose was to doom the ordinance in court.

Last night's votes followed a protracted public process that began 18 months ago, after the Supreme Court action. Hundreds of county residents -- as well as outside advocates on both sides of the debate -- have sent e-mails and spoken at numerous public meetings. Although no public comment was allowed last night, several dozen speakers came out the evening before, many of them for the second, third or fourth time, to voice their views. They brought as much emotion to the microphone as ever.

"I know that change is inevitable, but how this change is managed is very important," said Anthony V. Fasolo of Leesburg. "[The original proposal] is a good compromise between no growth and leave-no-tree-behind growth."

Countered Joseph L. Bane Sr., a western landowner and developer who has promised to be part of a lawsuit against a restrictive ordinance: "A taking is occurring here in this county. It's a taking of private property, which is destroying part of the value of our property. It has to be stopped. And we will, by God's grace, we will stop you."