Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (2)
Mann vs. Burton, board, et al., partially decided
Sally Mann asked the courts last week to force Chairman Scott York (I-at large) and Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) to turn over e-mails to and from their constituents. She also alleged that Burton violated her rights when he turned her name and contact information over to everyone on his e-mail constituent newsletter list.Mann's complaints spring from her efforts to create 10, perhaps fewer, lots on 35 acres of property just south of Hamilton that she inherited in 2003 from her uncle, Howard Rogers.
Since that time, she alleges, the county has tied her up in red tape, changed the rules and cost her thousands of dollars in engineers' fees and attorney costs.
"They have made up things to stop me, then ping-ponged me between the county and Hamilton. Each blames the other. "
At the same time, Mann said, the same names keep cropping up. Her Freedom of Information Act request to York asked for all e-mails to and from Jeff Wollinski, Chris Curto, Glenn Maravetz, Susan Buckley, Stevens Miller, Paul Siker and George Hidy.
Some of the names she knows to be associated with the local Republican committee, Mann said. Others she knows nothing about. She wants to know what they know about her, and why.
In the first of three cases, General District Court Judge Dean S. Worcester ruled Oct. 10 that York's aide, Keith Nusbaum, must complete a search of thousands of hard copies of e-mails to the Board of Supervisors, and must conduct his own search of York's home computer for the e-mails that had been requested.
Nusbaum had earlier compiled e-mails going back six months from an electronic search of York's office computer. York had searched his own home computer. E-mails addressed to the entire Board of Supervisors are printed out and kept in the board office. Nusbaum did not search those, he testified.
In the second of the three cases, Mann questioned Burton's withholding of certain correspondence that he, on his own, deemed personal.
Mann charged that Burton responded to her request within the five days, but withheld certain documents on the claim that they are personal, not public.
"The statute specifies public records," argued Assistant County Attorney Milissa Spring. "[Burton] provided all the public records in his possession. They were not redacted. Nothing was blacked out. What we printed out was supplied to Mrs. Mann."
Spring also pointed out that the law presumes that public officials are acting in good faith.
"There is no check and balance if he decides what is pubic and what is not," Mann countered. "He would not tell me what the others were."
Worcester ruled that Burton must answer several questions before Worcester rules -- are there other documents? How many? What are his reasons for withholding them?
Worcester said he was inclined to turn the documents over to Mann, as per the Freedom of Information Act, but hesitated to set a precedent that every time a constituent doesn't like a response from a supervisor, the answer is to "run to court."
In the third case, Mann complained to the court that after Burton was forced to give her his complete e-mail newsletter list, without letting any of his correspondents "opt out," he gave her home address, phone and e-mail address to everyone on his list.
Mann claimed she suffered considerable damage from that action -- by that evening her voice mail was full. She received, she said, many "unpleasant" messages, and her computer was attacked and disabled.
Worcester also took that case under advisement and will issue a ruling later.
Worcester said he did not think York's failure to respond to the Sept. 20 FOIA request within five days was "willful or knowing," and Worcester dropped that complaint. Noting that "these people [York's aide] have other things to do, he gave Nusbaum until Oct. 26 to complete his search of the hard copies and the home computer.
Nusbaum reported that as of Oct. 15 he had gone through seven of the 24 binders of hard-copy e-mails in the board office. He had found four that fall under Mann's FOIA -- two each from Buckley and Wollinski.
In the future, he said, he will suggest to the county attorney that the 24 binders are open to the public during business hours, and Mann, or any other citizen, is free to come in and go through them.
Worcester ordered that the county can bill Mann for the time devoted to the document review.
Contact the reporter at ssollinger@timespapers.com
My original CR-1 preliminary plat --before the down zoning-- called for 6 clustered lots on less than ten acres of my 35 acre lot. The county made up Ag district regulations to stop my subdivision, and then they downzoned me to AR-1.
Under the AR1 regs, I am entitled to 5 clustered lots. The county is litigating over ONE cluster lot-- I had originally proposed six clustered lots.
I tried to come in under the new AR-1 rural cluster regs this summer, because the county agreed that I was allowed to subdivide on 20 percent of my land even according to their overreaching interpretation of the Ag district. But, since I am in the One Mile Subdivsion Territory of Hamilton, Hamilton's subdivision regulations apply to me.
Unfortunately for me, Hamilton's regs conflict with the new AR-1 rural cluster regulations, making development of my property under AR-1 problematic. Hence the ping pong game between the town and the county. The Hamilton regulations are compatible with the original pre down zoning CR-1 regulations, however.
The county denied my original CR-1 preliminary plat becuse they said an agricultural district applied to me--at that time they did not recognize that the ag district would allow me to cluster, as they do now. The actual words of the ordinance said it expired years before. The County said the expiration date was a "typo, " and will not give in on this issue. I am not allowed to rely on the only published version of the ordinance available to the public.
I think the County's position is abusive and harassment, and they should settle our litigation to let me out of the ag district which they say, after correcting the "typo," expires next year any way.
I am suing the county to vest my original CR-1 preliminary plat, which meets Hamilton's One Mile Subdivision Territory regulations, and allows a municipal water line. The town needs a waterline to improve its water system, and it is planned through my property. I have drilled wells for my use, I will not be using the waterline. The town, not me, needs it.
Someone with some leadership and some sense needs to make this happen at the board level--they have already wasted more than $100,000 on outside attorney's fees, when the county attorney has done at least half of the litigation..
Posted by sallymann
Report Offensive Content
It is disturbing that the Loudoun County government has spent over $100,000 on outside attorneys fees in this matter, not including all of the staff time. Sally Kurtz has enjoyed her multi-parcel subdivision, yet Sally Mann has to litigate over a typo. Please consider this a request to the county: who at the county is investigating this matter and ensuring that our tax dollars are not wasted because of an alleged typo? There are too many stories of abuse by county staff for top administration to put their heads in the sand and waste our money. Where are you Mr. Bowers, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Roberts, and the BOS?
Posted by byebyeburton
Report Offensive Content
You must be logged in to post a comment.