Board Changes Track on Bay Ordinance … Again

The Loudoun Board of Supervisors changed track again slightly on plans to adopt regulations similar to those mandated by the state in some other localities to protect the Chesapeake Bay.

Two weeks after kicking the proposal back to a committee with little instruction for moving forward, supervisors reconsidered, offering more specific instructions identifying a stakeholder group to work with that committee.

The 5-4 vote came after a contentious debate where only Republicans stood together, albeit on the losing side.

Vice Chairman Susan Klimek Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) offered the motion to reconsider in an attempt to kill the motion for which she won support earlier. That motion directed the Transportation/Land Use Committee to provide a recommendation to the board in concert with a specified list of stakeholders. But the question was divided and no stakeholders were chosen.

"I believed then and I still do that the stakeholder process did not occur as it is intended. I believe it was flawed and needs to be amended," Buckley said. "My objectives were thwarted and left me with the position of moving forward without remedying the stakeholder process."

The board agreed to reconsider the vote on a 7-2 vote with Supervisors Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) and Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) opposed. The board then voted unanimously to kill the previously approved motion.

That put a motion by Potomac Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D) back up for consideration, but County Chairman Scott K. York (I-At Large) and Supervisor Kelly Burk (D-Leesburg) each had substitute motions prepared.

While a couple of supervisors called their debate a poor example of civil deliberation, others said the actions were simply legitimate political maneuvers, while accusing others of chicanery.

As chairman, York determined that his motion would be considered first, to the objection of Supervisors Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) and Buckley. Burk tried to offer her motion as York was still announcing the previous vote. York then disregarded her interruption and made his own motion, prompting Miller to criticize York for acting in a manner he said was similar to previously ousted Board members. Miller said he helped defeat the majority of that board and supported York.

"You're welcome Mr. York," Miller said, who also questioned whether Roberts' Rules of Order addressed the issue.

Backing Miller, Buckley commented more than once that she became aware of the details of Burk's motion before York shared his.

Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) pounced on the jabs at York and the level of discourse.

"This process has become a circus," Waters said. "We are demonstrating our complete dysfunction to operate as a body to the public."

Waters sought to essentially start the process over in an attempt, like supporters of the winning motion, to be more inclusive with stakeholders in the process. Burton felt just the opposite.

"I believe that the concerns over stakeholders is exaggerated," he said, pointing to the very vocal opposition that has spoken at various input sessions and public hearings. "Going through that all again is not going to change the power centers' specific positions on this bill."

"I'm sorry for some this has come down to pettiness," York said, responding to the challenge to his authority to control the board meeting and determine which motions come forward unless otherwise directed by the rules of order. However, he acknowledged he was taking advantage of an opportunity present by Buckley's reconsideration. York's motion failed 3-6, with Waters and Delgaudio joining him.

Miller said the feud was little more than a public debate driven by individual perspectives.

"Passionate debate is not a sign that a deliberative body isn't working," he said, offering a sentiment the previous board he criticized had taken on occasion.

Waters wouldn't let it go.

"There's no doubt there's been bickering going back and forth and pettiness," she said. "We are better than this."

The majority would not commit to McGimsey's request to defer a decision on the item until federal and state regulations under consideration are approved. She believed that would occur next year, while Burton suggested the current Republican administration in Richmond would fight any federal regulations and tie up the process for years.

"Whatever comes out of the feds, the state is going to sue and sue and sue," Burton said. "It will take years to resolve."

The proposal to adopt the restrictions outlined in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act has been the cause of controversy practically from its inception with supporters accusing opponents of spreading lies, while opponents have expressed confusion, dismay and ire about the process.

The General Assembly adopted the Chesapeake Bay Act in an attempt to curtail the degrading environmental conditions in the bay. The act was mandated upon many of the state's localities, but Loudoun was not among them.

Waters and York were prepared to start the process all over, saying they wanted water quality protections, but did not support the structure of the state act, rather, they sought Loudoun-specific regulations.

The group that opposed starting over favored sticking more closely to the state guidelines, which County Attorney John R. "Jack" Roberts said set the upper limits of restrictions that could be imposed. Loudoun, he said, could not exceed those restrictions, but also does not have to meet them.

Two weeks ago, Buckley attempted to identify the stakeholders for such input, but was rebuffed on her selection. A debate about the membership of the committee followed with not result. At one point, the Loudoun Chamber of Commerce was removed from the list in favor of another group. The lack of action on naming a group led to Buckley's motion Tuesday to reconsider, followed by Burk's new motion, which Buckley, Miller, Burk, Burton and Supervisor Sally R. Kurtz (D-Catoctin) supported. Burton's vote came despite his desire to lock the debate.

Supervisors will invite representatives from the following groups to participate:

• Facilities Standards Manual Public Review Committee
• Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee
• Loudoun Watershed Management Stakeholder Steering Committee
• Rural Economic Development Council
• Agricultural District Advisory Committee
• Loudoun Soil and Water Conservation District
• Agricultural Summit Group
• Wetland Workgroup
• Piedmont Environmental Council
• National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
• Northern Virginia Building Industry Association
• Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce
• Loudoun County Economic Development Commission
• Homeowners Associations–list of those that previously weighed in and any additionally interested
• Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
• Dulles Area Association of Realtors