Barbara, I have been looking at the staff presentations made during 2008, the last on Dec 1, 2008 about the CPBO. 

The 2008 staff report says that the staff had done a lot of work on the RSCOD in 2001-2003 (with 50 foot buffers) but did not recommend it because the property owners affected would have to be notified by certified mail and the amendments would have to be advertised (and they remark that the notice issue was what got them in trouble when the Court struck it.) 

So they seem to say the CBPO is the better way to go because it affects the whole county, and no notice is required.

Also, the report said that they decided in 2003 not to go with the CBPO because, get this, the State Code requires a “map” to impose RPAs.  Repeat. The State Code requires a map. 

They go on to explain that in 2007 they did a wetlands study, and with their aerial photographing, have developed the RPA screening tool, and they “think” this map will meet the legal standard (!)  UNBELIEVABLE.

It is true that the State Code says a locality can require individual mapping of properties, but this is only because sometimes streams and water courses change.  That does not change the law though: you have to start out with a good map—which we do not have.  WE have a guestimate that maybe half the county will possibly be RPA, but maybe not, maybe less, maybe more…ridiculous. 

SO, they decide to go with 100 foot buffers mapped with their screening tool over half the county, instead of the RSCOD that they worked on for years because…they would have to individually notify landowners and this way they could slip it by, without even advertising the ordinance changes to the codified code…

Could not be less Open and Transparent or Deliberative.

anon, when the 2001 revision of the comp plan was proposed, the version passed includes that the county will “consider” opting in to the CBA.

The $30K to PEC was very interesting.  I saw that happen;  it was during the passage of the “grant request” AKA CCAN/Transatlantic Climate Initiatives award-winning first ever cap and trade program.

There was an item to have $20K budgeted for education and outreach, and York bumped it to $30K and it passed.

I noted that a nonprofit, as opposed to an accountable government agency, was tasked with “reaching out” and “educating”, but they already have the machinery in place, so…

I don’t know if any one person can be blamed for it;  I heard today from someone who attended the Potomac meeting that Ms. McGimsey admitted she hadn’t read the ordinance yet.

No wonder so much bad legislation gets passed!

Gee, it’s about a good thing, so I’m for it!  I don’t need to READ it if it’s GOOD!

Good God.

Barbara, people are wondering who first proposed this.  At the December 1, 2008, Feb 17 2009 and Dec 15.2009 meetings it was Supevisor York’s motion every time, to study option 1, study of the Ches Bay Act here (12/1/08), to prepare the ‘work program (2/17/09) and then to notice the board’s intent to change all of its ordinances and adopt the CBPO (12/15/09—without discussion since all they really discussed that day was the adoption of our CES.)

Is York the one behind this?  On 12/15/09 he also moved that the PEC be given $30,000 to send out mailers about energy and conservation?

But then he voted against it… why would he put it forward, and then vote against it?  Looks like he is the one all along moving this to where it is now?

Or did Andrea McG really set it up, earlier in 2008?  Everyone thinks McG has done this…

Still wading through the docs prepared for the Committee of the Whole meeting, and found this gem:  the question was asked that if the county did not know how many people had patios etc already, how would they determine who had an existing structure and who didn’t?

The answer?  In addition to the now standard “complaint based” compliance (worked really well for a very long time on zoning in the northeast, didn’t it?), they added that staff could use aeriaal photography to determine who had what.

Maybe we can buy some drones for the inventory and ongoing surveillance, and then we really wouldn’t need any new FTEs, right?

Steve P,

The generations of Chesapeake families that you speak about below would want us to DO something that actually made a difference, not this political BS. 

Fertilizer is the problem; we need to address the problem, and not make up pretend solutions by telling people they cannot put a playset in their established backyard/neighborhood. 

What we have here is politicians with an agenda to inspect, document and control our lives and our property, down to the smallest detail.  They want to know all the trees we have planted in our yard, want to tell us how to landscape, want to tell us our patio is too big, and tell us no playsets.  And spinning it like they are saving us from “dirty” water.  NO. Every application that comes in will trigger scrutiny of your property, and bureaucrats debating whether you should be just “managed” or whether your land should be “preserved” as no disturb buffer.

Many are questioning the stream study the County did, because the State says that 94 percent of our streams are above average or excellent, and none of them are in the category of “poor.”

This Board is creating a crisis, so they can falsely paint themselves as do gooders, when their real agenda is to study everyone’s property in detail (and make us pay for them to inspect us) and then take control of even small decisions of EVERY homeowner’s life. 

Even if you are just in the RMA, you are still ‘Managed” and will still need to get a waiver to have the rules not apply to you…(good luck with that…)  The County answers to the FAQ’s are incorrect and misleading to make people think that these new rules will not apply to EVERYONE.  They will, unless the homeowner applies for a waiver or exception (two different and difficult processes.)  And of course, charge us an average of an EXTRA $4000 to do all of this evaluation and management when we apply to build a deck less than 1500 square feet in the “managed” area on a quarter acre lot… look at the website—that is what it says.

STOP the madness!  Say NO!

Wheatland, where did I say that only people I agree with can be involved in public process?

Interesting.

In the case of the Wheatland schools, I argued for the same thing I’d like to see here:  proper process.

I find it particularly hypocritical that some Board members, who made their career on citizen inclusion and allowing “the people” (apparently only those THEY agree with) to be involved, were trying to vote though something in which the text wasn’t even advertised until a few weeks ago, because “technically” they didn’t have to advertise before the Planning Commission hearing.

Dislike me as you will.  I don’t lose much sleep over anonymous people hating me on the internet.

But this isn’t about me.

It is about bad process, and a badly-done ordinance.

Playsets may tug at heartstrings and provide a convenient hook in family friendly Loudoun, but they are a small part of the scope of the flaws here.

Anonymous,  I agree - the ordinance needs work to remove the kinds of restriction you mention (playset).  I also agree that the public definitely should have a say in decisions that affect them.  However, Ms Munsey only believes that the public should have the right to affect political decisions when she agrees with the protest group (as is the case here).  But when the citizen protest group opposes an issue that Ms. Munsey supports, she cries foul. I suppose the more you blog and spew your political agenda to any that will listen, the higher the probability exists of contradicting yourself.

Thanks for the detailed mapping info.  Hope we won’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and the most significant stream protection measures can be retained in the ordinance and the more controversial elements you mention discarded.

Wheatland, thousands of entire lots in Eastern Loudoun which are nowhere near any stream (but near drainage swales) are proposed to be no disturb RPA—no playsets, no patios, etc.

This BoS was going to adopt all of these ordinances without any public notice even, because they don’t have to advertise changes to the codified ordinances (ie adopting a new Ordinance such as proposed.)  There has been every attempt to hide the truth and these amendments from the public, and thank god they deferred it, because people need to map their properties and see how they and their neighbors and neighborhoods are severely restricted for any home improvements at all… you may have disagreed on what input was necessary in the past, but Barbara is more than correct here, this was an attempt to shove this on us without even telling us..the so called “stakeholders” were none of the people who are actually affected, no homeowner associations, all govt appointed (read political) advisors…

Instructions to map:

Half the County will be no disturb must plant riparian buffer—here is how to map your neighborhood.  You will be shocked at how many typical suburban yards are now no disturb, you cannot put a patio or a play set in an RPA:

There are 13 steps to find the extent of Resource Protection Areas on your property. Here they are:
Go to http://www.loudoun.gov
Click on “Assessments/Parcels” under e-Services
Click on box “Yes” at bottom
Click on circle “Property Address”
Put your address in empty box (do not use “Road”)
Click box “Submit”
Click on “Map It”
Click “Yes” box
Click on “Map Layers” on top left tab
Click on “Land Records” box
Click on “Environmental”
Click box for “Buildings” and for “Draft RPA Screening Tool”
Click on “Apply” oval at bottom left.
Tan areas are your resource protection areas that require preservation.
Dots are buildings.

Barbara Munsey is advocating for citizen outreach so the public can be involved with decisions that impact them?  How is it “protest groups” solicit her disapproval on some issues while encouraged on others, like this one.  Her statements are royally hypocritical. 

This ordinance needs work, but not taking firm action to protect water quality is irresponsible.

I wish the generations of Chesapeake Bay families devastated by the nitrate (sediment, fertilzer, animal waste) pollution would be at these meetings so the those who believe these regualations are “onerous” would have to be face to face with them. We are all neighbors and live upstream and downstream from someone.

The Board of Supervisors did a lot of name calling, and they should be the first to stop insulting citizens who are raising valid concerns accusing unnamed “special interests” of spreading unknown and unspecified “misinformation” for political reasons.  Bull!  The people there were average homeowners, lots of them, begging the Board not to do this because the regulatory scheme makes no sense and excessively restricts property with no benefit…  Why are we all RMA, having to get a waiver to build even a patio or a deck?

See and hear for yourself the views of our
Board of Supervisors regarding the Chesapeake Bay proposals and hear them insulting citizens
opposed.

From the BOS June 15 meeting: Go to http://www.loudoun.gov/ Click on “Webcasts” under “e-services” on right. Click on “Agendas & archives” in 1st right-hand
column (to get to June 15 regular board meeting) Click on “View/Listen” in first row “Board of Supervisors’
Business Meeting” Date June 15, 2010 Scroll down meeting agenda to Item IX. Committee of the
Whole/CPAM 2009-002, etc. Click on. To actually get to Board Item IX. on the Ches. Bay, click on
“Jump to” (to avoid all the other items of discussion) and then select
Item IX. Committee of the Whole . . . . You have to wait a few seconds for supervisors to return to
their chairs. Be sure volume is on.

The yelling and name calling will continue to blur important discussions like water quality policy until our community starts separating scientific facts from opinions and treating both as separate aspects of the solution.

The facts about water quality and the impact of water pollution on the health of all of us, especially our children, are established by scientists. Once we assemble and validate the facts on the degree of the problem, the ternds in different parts of the county, and the health implications—Part 1 of the discussion—we can then look at a variety of strategies and tactics to fix the problem—which becomes Part 2 of the discussion.

I believe we can all stipulate that we care about public health and want to minimize pollution that reduces the quality of public health. Let’s look at the facts unemotionally then we can have a spirited but respectful debate about the most appropriate solutions for Loudoun County. Water quality affects every single one of us - and will affect future generations as well.

We all know (Republicans and Democrats alike)that we need clean water in order to live so why are we not all in agreement with rules that will help us get us there?  Why do we have to make everything a partisan issue? Stop the name-calling, and all agree that we have to work TOGETHER to make sure we have clean drinking water and if need be put in place regulations we can all agree upon.

Evan MacBeth and I used to serve together on the Leesburg Cable TV Advisory Commission.  In the board room Monday he accused me of liking regulations when I was on the CATV Commission but not liking them now, something he sees as an inconsistency. 

Of course, I don’t really “like” regulations, but sure, because cable TV companies sort of like utilities in that they lay cable in the public right-of-way, and are pretty much a monopoly, there needs to be some oversight and regulation. 

But in Evan’s mind, if you support one regulation on one thing you have to support another regulation on something completely different.  Go figure.

The sad part is that Evan and I got along great on the CATV Commission, and he seemed a smart and reasonable guy. I was therefore very disappointed in his behavior Monday.  He did himself and his cause no favors by the way he acted.

What was up with Delgaudio doing robocalls and giving out other Supervisors phone numbers? Nutcase that Delgaudio seems to be with him being so vehemently anti-LGBT and his brother who was put on probation for child porn. Weird family.

forgive the language errors, it did not paste in all that well.

To whoever above stated that “Why does the State Department of Environmental Quality test our streams for years and consider 94% of them above average or excellent, “; I offer this excerpt from http://www.deq.state.va.us/. Generally speaking, the quality of surface waters in Loudoun
County is good, particularly the farther one is from the Potomac River. Catoctin Creek and Goose Creek are noted for good quality water. Even the Potomac, itself, in western Loudoun County, is in
fairly good. The quality of the lower Tuscarora, for the last 4.8 miles’ is poor. This latter condition is fairly true of most of the other streams; their quality degrades the nearer one goes toward the mouth. Water-borne sediment is also a problen in two areas of the County, with the Potomac #4 drainage area and Goose Creek basin losing up to 60 and 290 tons of soil material per square mile per year in l968 (Sl,rJCB, Information Bull. 526,
.I976).

“...smells like a set up to me…”
*
So does anything being plugged by an anonymous poster or public reactions being sought from a robo-call associated with one of the sitting BOS members (that would be Eugene).  Smells like something anyway…and it ain’t flowers…

Why does the State Department of Environmental Quality test our streams for years and consider 94% of them above average or excellent, and then the county does one limited study and all of a sudden they claim our streams are “dead?” 

hmmmm, smells like a set up to me.

The liquid was not “brown.”  Both jars looked like clear water, Mr. Flannery just “said” the water was filled with bad stuff.

I’d like to know what “misleading” information that the BoS is talking about, that supposedly “special interests” are pushing on us?  It was all individual homeowners who came to the hearing, and raised objections.  What do they think we have wrong—they won’t say—the public is misinformed about this specific fact, just “misinformed?”  About WHAT.  We can read, and we can see our property mapped in green and yellow.  What is it we are missing?  And we can see half the County mapped yellow and green… and we see that is to be buffer, no disturb, and that we will be asked to plant it… and pay many thousands of dollars more for simple ordinary small improvements to our homes.

What exactly are we missing?

You mean John Flimflannery???  no credibility, yes a lot of people were fooled that he was a half decent attorney.  He thinks he can impress the crowd with a three ring act, illusions and deceptions and thrills!  Wrong.  He should be totally embarrassed by this… no one bought or was impressed with his silly theatrics…so glad he never got elected to anything, calling people who raise legitimate points “slothful” and so blind to any discussion, using and advocating arbitrary and raw power (since he thinks he is an insider now with Miller) instead of understanding—that will be his claim to fame, his arrogant dismissal of the truth that people spoke…accusing the dirty masses of WANTING dirty water (when the Dems just want more power, never satisfied, more government, more taxes for them to spend…and sent to their friends..)...SAD that these operatives think they can fool us all…just my opinion…

Thank you for exposing the outrageous antics of Democrats MacBeth and Flannery.  I thought better of Flannery, but not any more.  I guess those kennedy/redford looks are just skin deep. Macbeth looked like a total dorkus out there, especially with his nerdy shorts and glasses.  Also, what was he calling Tom Seeman out for?  York had to nearly call the sheriff to remove these two clowns.  And, if they were Republicans, don’t you think the liberal local media would be making a big do about that?

MacBeth was indeed speaking on behalf of this tradgedy. If people can’t even comprehend that fact, how are they going to tell me that I (and most of the county) are somehow ...misinformed?
Truth is ...we got your number, and you’d be amazed what we can do to truly educate the masses on what a real stinker this Act REALLY is. Thanks for the three months, BOS.

Anyone see the same tactic being used here as was used to pass healthcare? “We dare not vote for it now, so we’ll put it off for three months to attempt to let people’s attention spans deplete.”
That’s all I see.
People of Loudoun—REJECT this POS that tramples on your very property rights and the freedoms that many generations have died for - in every effort to keep us from being a China or a North Korea wannabee.

Kristin, that seems to be endemic—people in the suburban policy area are not getting specific answers either, or in some cases even answers.

It all goes back to the lack of comprehensive mapping.

The definitions are all in ordinance language, and the published flowcharts and FAQs are incomplete and grossly oversimplified in relation to the ordinance langauge.

Add that on top of a total lack of citizen outreach, and a total lack of specific applicability to most parcels in the county, no wonder so many people are so very concerned.

The comments by some, including members of the puiblic, the BoS, and the chair of the “stakeholders” group, were dismissive, condescending, and profoundly insulting to those who took the trouble to speak—seems everyone is just too stupid and lazy to understand what a good thing this mess is, and are just being led around by evil greedy polluting special interest groups.

Do the mapping first, then do comprehensive, open citizen outreach—like the VLF crowd campaigned on?—THEN talk about whether or not to implement any portion of it.

The problem is that staff cant seem to answer any SPECIFIC questions about the applicability of the Act to individual landowners.  Ive sent my questions to several Supervisors and the staff along with a county map of my property and my address.  Supervisors sent back links to code sections that said nothing determinative and staff has been unresponsive.  I cant tell if Im being ignored or they just dont know the answers to specific applicability.  If its all a bunch of hype, prove it and answer my questions guys.  Thanks.

Funny how Mr. K calls people “nutjobs” and “liars” and then somehow imagines someone called him a name? 

Thousands of homeowners in eastern Loudoun and Dulles South will now be completely in the RPA and will not be allowed to place a play set in their law, without facing notices of violations and fines.  Play sets are specifically in the ordinance, defined as accessory structures, and no accessory structures are allowed to be placed in the RPA.

And yes, Mr. K, a violation of the zoning ordinance is criminal, and these changes included changes to the zoning ordinance—the County has prosecuted people before for zoning violations…. so I would say Mr. Delgaudio got it more right than you, certainly…

It may sound like a good idea, but if you read the proposed ordinance, it is filled with flaws and is not the correct way to do it.  I question whether it would really make a significant difference.  Do you really think that the County is saving the environment by making owners plant vegetation and preserve buffers when they and other regulatory agencies are doing little to address all of the real sources of nutrients and sediment to the streams and bay? Get real. The County hasn’t even clearly identified what the problems are or what the ordinance will do to address them.  This is just a feel good measure and political tool for one (or more) Board Member to use in their effort to use the BOS as a stepping stone for higher office.  They just need something to put in their campaign literature that says they “enacted strict regulations to save the environment and bay.”  Again, not necessarily a bad idea, but this ordinance needs a major overhaul.

Mr. Kilgaellon, please show me how I am taunting, or calling names?

More projection.

This should not be enacted without accurate mapping, followed by inclusive outreach to ALL who will be impacted by it.

What about that specific point do you disagree with?

Leesburg Resident, Leesburg is not going to be part of this.  Did you know that Leesburg dumps all of its storm water by pipe straight into the Potomac?  Thats a lot worse than rural Loudoun not having 100 foot buffers over half the land…

And the fellow who spoke with the water about it was his right to be a nuisance, was speaking FOR the Act.  He was quite insulting, and so are the posts that call names instead of trying to understand what some of the objections are..

Leave it to realtors and property owners to not understand what protecting the water supply is all about - it is very sad to hear people mouth off what jargon they’ve been fed without doing accurate research. The Clean Water Act came into being to address our nation’s polluted waterways. Leave it to selfish Loudouners to not understand the true nature of protecting our water resources. And we are selfish - we pollute and think drinking bottled water is the simple solution. Empty bottles are destroying natural habitats and oceans. I suggest you get educated about what it takes to protect and preserve the water supply. First of all it takes honest communication and not this fear mongering and rancor in board meeting. How embarrassing for the rest of us.

It’s a shame (but not really a surprise) that Supervisor Delgaudio and other right wing nutjobs and are spreading lies about the ordinance. Mr. Delgaudio has sent out information claiming that anyone in the county who wants to enlarge their deck, plant shrubs “or any other activity” will face fines and jail time. There is no other way to put it: that is a lie.

Ms. Munsey, your recent posts here and elsewhere have been nothing but childish taunts and name calling. Do you not have a point to make anymore?

“Misleading information by special interests”.
Projection.

Uhhhh, “These regulations will impose no undue burdens on property owners, need to additional staff to implement, and the only people who oppose it are greedy developers who want children to drink poisoned water.”  There’s your misleading info by special interests.

Projection.