Although LWC would have preferred that the Board re-advertise and re-enact the zoning approved by the last Board, the Clem-Burton proposal was preferred over others proposed by our Supervisors.

The following comes from a newsletter from Supervisor Burton to his constituents [December 2005]:

Western Zoning
On November 17 th the Board passed a motion of intent to amend the zoning ordinances for Western Loudoun. At that time Vice-Chair Tulloch joined the original five supervisor majority – Chairman York, Supervisors Clem, Kurtz, and Waters, and me – by casting his vote in support of the Clem-Burton plan. This vote began the formal public process for transforming the Clem-Burton plan from proposal to actual county law.

Between December 1 st and 10 th the Board held four work sessions. The purpose of these work sessions was the following:

- To address outstanding concerns with the staff’s proposed language for the zoning ordinances, comprehensive plan, and facilities standards manual (FSM);
- To integrate the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee’s (ZORC) proposed language with the staff’s proposals;
- To determine and approve the public process from the possibilities allowed by state code.

On December 10 th the Board finalized the language it will advertise and the public process it will follow. For the most part the final language tracks the direction set by the Board this summer when it voted 5-4 to select the Clem-Burton plan as its model for the new rural zoning ordinances. The one disappointment was the failure to retain language that would have required the placement of some portion of subdivided land into permanent easement. This requirement was part of the original Clem-Burton plan. Staff’s rationale for removing the requirement was that it would generate excessive administrative work. However, I am at a loss as to why staff omitted this requirement from the draft language it submitted to the entire Board without first checking with the five-member majority. Unfortunately, despite two attempts, easement supporters on the Board could not generate five votes to reinsert the requirement. Otherwise, with this one exception, I am very pleased with the language we will advertise for public hearing.

There do remain a few open questions. These include:

- Whether to retain a minimum lot size for the rural economy lot
- How many accessory dwellings to allow on a parcel
- Whether to retain a family subdivision provision
- Whether to adjust the performance standards for certain rural economy uses, in particular those for equestrian facilities

For the purpose of moving forward, however, the Board decided to advertise the new language, seek out public input on these issues, and continue the discussion as the language moves through the public process.

The public process selected by a majority of the Board was neither the process I preferred, nor that preferred by Chairman York, Supervisor Waters or Supervisor Kurtz. Our biggest concern was that the process selected adds another 30 to 60 days to the schedule. Details of this process (as well as the other alternatives proposed by staff) can be found at http://www.loudoun.gov/rural/ .

The Board did refine the traditional process with a motion by Supervisor Waters to require that the Planning Commission report back to the Board in 82 days. This deadline ensures that the Planning Commission cannot indefinitely delay the Board’s final consideration and enactment of the ordinances. Thus, while this is not the process I preferred, we are at least purposefully moving forward to again replace A-3 zoning. I hope that all of you will continue to closely follow the Boards’ actions (as well as those of the Planning Commission), continue to email us your comments and concerns, and plan to attend the public hearings when they are scheduled.