Board Restricts Building

Compromise Plan On Growth Approved

Supervisor Mick Staton's compromise plan passed. (Tracy A. Woodward - The Washington Post)

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors took the final step yesterday to curb residential growth in the county's rural west, ending more than a year of bitter debate by replacing sweeping building restrictions thrown out by the state Supreme Court in March 2005.

The result left few satisfied. By a 5 to 4 vote, supervisors approved a plan that reduces the total number of new homes that can be built in Loudoun's western two-thirds from 37,000 to roughly half that. But it falls far short of the original restrictions, which would have allowed no more than 10,000 homes.

"I am honestly starting to believe that there will be peace in the Middle East before there is consensus on the western downzoning," said Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run), whose compromise proposal prevailed yesterday. "Nobody is getting everything they want. But it's my belief that everybody's getting something they can live with."

Opponents disagreed. They said the Staton plan replaced a true compromise crafted more than a year ago that would have limited most average parcel sizes to 10 and 20 acres. Staton's plan allows average parcel sizes in most cases of five and 15 acres. The vast majority of the hundreds who spoke at public hearings supported the more stringent restrictions.

"The public is mad, they are tired, they are frustrated," said Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), one of the four supervisors who voted against the proposal. "They have come out and told us what they wanted to see."

Loudoun's effort to restrict development in a 300-square-mile swath of rolling farmland in the shadows of the Blue Ridge has deeply divided its residents. On one side are those who seek to preserve their rural lifestyle and prevent the visual sprawl, highway congestion and growing demand for expensive county services that have come with intense development in eastern Loudoun.

Others believe the restrictions unfairly deprive property owners of the full value of their land. Many, in fact, have been rushing to subdivide their property this year to qualify for the three-acre lots that, as of today, are no longer allowed. Supervisor James G. Burton (I-Blue Ridge), another opponent of the Staton plan, said at yesterday's meeting that more than 1,000 three-acre lots have been created since the Supreme Court ruling.

The debate has also captivated anti-sprawl activists and representatives of the development industry, many of whom have followed events in Loudoun to monitor just how far local governments are willing to go to respond to public frustration with rising property taxes, growing traffic and ever-spreading development.

On the slow-growth side, activists said Loudoun did not go far enough.

"The Staton plan for us is not a compromise at all," said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. "It's perhaps as bad as the three-acre zoning and would have the same effect of destroying the rural landscape and the rural economy of western Loudoun."

Still to be seen is how far the courts will allow Loudoun to go. The state's highest court discarded the last set of restrictions on a technicality, but those on both sides of the issue who are unhappy with the compromise said they may sue to overturn the new rules on their merits.

Yesterday's decision provided the legal means for the county to change its development plan, which it adopted in September. However, as with most decisions in Loudoun, it did not come without several delays and surprises.

Late in the day, Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R-Dulles) said he would not support the Staton plan unless it included a grandfather clause that would allow all property owners with pending applications to qualify for three-acre lots.

The county Planning Commission recommended in the spring that the board approve such a clause, but County Attorney John R. Roberts said it might not withstand legal scrutiny.

Vice Chairman Bruce E. Tulloch (R-Potomac) threatened to switch his vote in favor of the original compromise. That move might have led to further delay if supervisors had demanded that the entire process start over.

Ultimately, Snow and Tulloch both backed down, clearing the way for the compromise.

Supervisor Jim Clem (R-Leesburg) said the plan was reasonable, if not as far-reaching as some would have liked.

"I love the idea that people think transportation is going to be solved if we pass a certain plan," he said. "Well wake up, people!"