Loudoun Adopts Growth Compromise

Some Angry That Deferral of Final Vote Lets Subdividing of Land in West Continue

Supervisors Vice Chairman Bruce E. Tulloch , left, and Jim Clem, both of the GOP, played roles in delays. (Courtesy Of Jim-e. Clem)

For some in Loudoun County, Wednesday's vote to reduce homebuilding in the rural west was a historic step toward sweeping growth restraints. For others, the vote was a defeat for any real change.

Either way, the late-night vote did little to put to rest an issue that for years has divided residents of Virginia's fastest-growing jurisdiction. It also underscored the suspicion, division and just plain unpredictability that has characterized a Board of Supervisors that claims -- but is not always believed -- to support managed growth.

At stake is a far-reaching plan to reduce homebuilding in the county's pastoral west, thus preserving the region's rural way of life and keeping traffic and demand for government services down. The plan is meant to replace a similar one struck down last year by the Virginia Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, by a vote of 5 to 4, supervisors approved a compromise growth plan that would reduce the number of homes that could be built in a 300-square-mile area of farmland and mountain views from 37,000 to roughly half that. By reducing average parcel sizes in most cases from 20 and 10 acres to 15 and five, the compromise allows 4,000 more homes than an earlier proposal that had been considered for months. Current zoning allows homes on three-acre lots.

Supervisors also delayed a vote on the actual ordinance that would implement the new restrictions until November at the earliest, potentially allowing hundreds more parcels to be subdivided under the existing rules.

Their last-minute changes to a plan that had been under consideration for months drew accusations that a conspiracy was at work to imperil the restrictions.

"There is no democracy going on in Loudoun County," said Brin Luther of Leesburg, one of hundreds of residents who urged supervisors in e-mails and at public meetings to stick with the original proposal. "This is a last-minute snow job. The taxes, the traffic -- it's not planned growth. It will turn the area into a suburb."

Countered Supervisor Jim Clem (R-Leesburg), one of the crucial votes for the compromise: "It's a less radical plan. It's better for everyone. You're going to end up with more open space."

In dozens of e-mails to the board yesterday, residents also accused supervisors of orchestrating a delay to allow more developers to gain approval under current rules; of ignoring the will of the county; and of trying to have it both ways -- saying that they support growth controls but enacting policy at the behest of the development industry.

"Shame on you for throwing the residents of Loudoun County under the bus!" wrote Robert E. Ciullo of Hamilton. "You have truly shown Loudoun citizens that your loyalty to developers FAR exceeds your loyalty to the citizens you represent."

The vote even prompted a local state delegate who favors slower growth, Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), to seek an opinion from the state attorney general's office on the legality of the vote.

At the center of the debate is a divided Board of Supervisors dominated by Republicans who came into office two years ago with a promise to impose fewer building restrictions than the previous board. Since then, as voters' demands for growth controls have become louder, several of the supervisors have sounded a more conciliatory tone on growth.

By last summer, in fact, a majority of supervisors had committed to a plan to restrict western homebuilding by limiting houses to average parcel sizes of 10 and 20 acres. Among them were Clem and board Vice Chairman Bruce E. Tulloch (R-Potomac).

Yet Clem and Tulloch played roles in a series of delays, beginning in June, that have now pushed the final vote to November. And on Wednesday, both changed their minds about supporting the original proposal.

Both said, as did others who voted the same way, that the new proposal was a suitable compromise that gets the job done.

Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run), who authored the compromise, said his proposal was intended to bridge the gap between supervisors -- and put to rest, once and for all, an issue that has occupied the board for 18 months.

But the compromise angered the slow-growth faction on the board. Those members accused Staton and others of trying to get the growth 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 state Supreme Court to toss out a similar set of restrictions last year, ruling that the plan had not been properly advertised. The delay allows the board to advertise the exact wording of the compromise.

Staton has never been a cheerleader for growth controls in the west, but he has offered a compromise before. He flatly rejected the accusation that he came up with this week's plan with the intent of dooming the whole enterprise. He opposed Wednesday's delay, which the board's growth-control advocates demanded. He is sure, he said, that such notice is legally unnecessary.