Wow, so all it would take is a commission permit on a school already approved by the corporate Board, but Mr. York wants to keep playing musical school sites?

I wonder what groups will come out to protest whatever the NEW pick is?

If Mr. York and the 99 Board had NOT bought Fields in the back room, would all of this time and money been spent while the Valley cluster was crowded to death?

Best argument going to keep the Board's hands out of politically motivated school site selection.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This school decision in the hands of Mrs. Chaloux-Conway and the PC? That's just scary. I suppose if Mrs. Chaloux-Conway follows her typical approach to anything new in Loudoun (e.g. if it adds 1 car trip to a road, it's no good), she will wholeheartedly vote no for the school site without even considering it. For the Dulles South Lenah site, she has already said that we are fine busing kids to wherever there is capacity in the county. So what's the problem and why the rush for the school when we could spend a few more years looking for a different site? How unfortunate that this had to happen on this PCs watch. For the sake of the kids, I sure hope a school can be built soon in that area.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on September 12, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The County/School Board and town have been arguing about both about procedure and substance. Looks to me like the County won the procedural issue ("who decides the issues") but the town won the substantive issues ("PUGAMP is valid, PUGAMP controls, the high school is not a feature shown, and the school's proposed utilities are not allowed.") So, even though it looks like both won, the County won a minor skirmish to let the litigation live another day, but the Town won the ultimate substantive war. The question is, does the County want to continue to fight, against its own citizens, knowing it is wrong?

The Supreme Court ruled that the proper procedure was to send the application to the County Planning Commission to determine whether the new school conforms substantially to the PUGAMP plan, which plan the S. Ct found valid. If the County Planning Commission cannot find substantial conformance, then by law, it must turn the school board's application down. This looks like a likely result because the S. Court specifically overruled Judge Horne's finding that the High School was a feature shown, and the PUGAMP prohibits the sewer/water facilities the County is proposing.

By any stretch of the facts, the County Planning Commission cannot reasonably find substantial conformance to the PUGAMP, given the findings of the Supreme Court.

The County should resolve this quickly and stop fighting in the Courts, which wastes our taxpayer money, and only causes more expensive delay. I say the County put our money into more roads or other improvements Purcellville wants, now that we are in this situation of being so desperate for a school. I don't like this situation, and think it has been mishandled all around, but that is what I think we need to do now. Cut our losses, make the best of it and go on. The school benefits the whole county, and so will the improvements in the area, even though they are inside the town limits. Let's just get it done. One more penny on litigation just hurts us all. Time to put egos aside and end this fight.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on September 13, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say the County put our money into more roads or other improvements Purcellville wants, now that we are in this situation of being so desperate for a school.
==========================================
peter
<a href=http://www.legalx.net>california dui</a>

Posted by peternaughton8 (anonymous) on September 13, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All technical, legal issues aside...shame on us all for allowing in the growth that we did and not planning for the infratructure that is needed. I don't know what the right answer is to this immediate problem, but let's all start thinking about what will be needed in the future. There are thousands of houses that are approved, and unbuilt. When will we learn????

Posted by adrienne.gardner (anonymous) on September 13, 2008 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Gardner, shame on those who pretended it would all go away if it was just decried as "greedy".

Change has been occurring for some time now--are you saying maybe its time to admit it and start dealing with it?

Kudos to you if so.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Gardner, stopping and delaying schools, and other improvements, like roads, making our lives miserable, has been the most successful strategy to "stop" growth. It has been an intentional move on the part of our elected officials. We recently down zoned the entire western 2/3 of our county based on the no infrastructure/schools fight, etc.
Now the game has gotten beyond the pale, and we need our county planning staff, the Town of Purcellville, Mr. Burton, the County Board, and the School Board, to erase all the lines in the sand and act reasonably to represent the people out here in Western Loudoun to make some necessary public improvements and provide us a school. Agree in conditions to the Commission Permit to make the improvements to Purcellville that will allow the Town to comfortably agree to the Commission permit. If we can spend 20 million on Lenah, we can find the seven million or so, that Purcellville says it needs in roads and infrastructure, to make Woodgrove work. Developers proffer improvements all the time, the School Board can too. The County Board and School Board got us into this mess with the way this property was bought, knowing it was in the PUGAMP, and in ignoring Purcellville. So the County and School Board, having created this mess, need to get us out, with honor--do the right thing here. Litigation is like burning money, and we have burned through millions on this needless fight. We need to stop litigating, get together with a reasonable agreement to build something, and put all of our our money into infrastructure. Millions have been wasted so far--that could have paid for what Purcellville has wanted as conditions to put the school where the County wants it.
Stop wasting our time and money with more litigation! The children out here need a school desperately. Simply announce that finally we have all agreed to all conditions, and we are going to build the school. Everyone can (and will) take the credit. Just get it done!

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not saying anything other than we should've gotten the zoning correct many years ago, instead of making it a moving target that is impossible for any planning body to work with. I have my own opinions as to what that zoning should look like, and those views have not changed. However, this situation is just one of many to come where we will pay for this county's inability to commit. I don't believe just because development pressure is knocking at our door that we must allow it, although we do have to provide facilities for those who now live here. For this reason, I am in support of buiding the school.

Posted by adrienne.gardner (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Gardner, MANN12 is correct--the two issues (impact and mitigation) have been twinned to the detriment of ALL existing residents, not just those who prefer how it was before anyone (including the preferred) got here.

It is possible to disagree about growth, but that is the change that has, and will continue to occur.

To respond to every service need with the philosophy that addressing change will only cause more has resulted in a variety of issues countywide that do not serve residents safely or well--roads, schools, public safety.

The western highschool is years overdue, and opening it as quickly as possible will allow schoolkids there to approximate a normal schedule again--three year middle schools, four year high schools, and reasonable conditions therein.

This has dragged on so long that they should already be well on the way to relieving THAT, once they get a semblance of normalcy to occur.

In fact, they've been trying for a couple years now to project beyond Woodgrove, but what has happened?

Everything is uniformly the wrong place for a variety of reasons that have little to do with ADDRESSING impact, and everything to do with still considering schools for existing residents a negative impact.

Those "who live here now" are a moving target. And will remain so as long as the nation, the region, the metro area have an economy.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Suppose the County developed a facilities plan map - an extension of their Comprehensive Plan. Essentially the Capital Needs Assessment in map form. Buy as much of the land now in this market using a RFP process where sellers compete to bring the best deal for taxpayers. Where property can't be acquired now, offer tax incentives to landowners willing to provide the County with the right of first refusal for subsequent purchase. If a facility plan map were to be developed, the moving target Ms. Munsey refers to (new residents moving in) who become NIMBYs will have significantly less leverage and hopefully fights like Fields Farm and Lenah will be mitigated. I acknowledge potential flaws may exist with this specific approach but hopefully the concept can evolve to something viable.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With respect to Woodgrove, for the County to put in their own sewage treatment system is wasteful. If they insist on this approach it proves the legal fight has been about preserving their right to have all power over all matters irrespective of logic. The health department will not allow sports fields on drainfields nor on reserve drainfields. With Purcellville utilities available for the school, drainfield land could be put to significantly better use.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, I think now is definitely time for the BoS and school board to develop a process and inventory of FUTURE sites.

I don not think we need to turn Lenah into a Fields mid-process.

The utilities issue, in my opinion, is why Fields was purchased by the 99 BoS in the first place, and a major portion of why Purcellville (the entity, not necessarily the residents) fought so hard on this.

Annexation, for utilities, triggers 400 ADUs across the street from Fields.

A legitimate reason to be as concerned as they have about the backroom purchase of that property since it occurred.

You may wish to check your facts on another blog:

The school Board's attorney has been their attorney for some time, and is affiliated with a large law firm that represents a wide variety of clients.

Your posts about the school board's lawyer read as though he personally represented Greenvest during the CPAMs, and then went on to represent schools.

Chapman's representation of the corporate school board precedes any Greenvest land proposals in the transition zone.

To my knowledge, Greenvest was never his client.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The idea of joint planning between our Towns and County is now dead by the County's actions. Shame on York who stood idly by as a bystander while his buddy on the BOS Jim Burton worked to destroy a contract that the citizens put together. Using Burton's logic with respect to Fields Farm it is interesting now that he would be against the Lenah property, the properties are very similar with respect to the lack of utilities, transportation access, community support etc. If the Planning Commission supports the Fields Farm application Barbara then they must support Lenah -- no difference.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I understand what you are saying about the sordid past of Fields Farm. At this point in time, the Town has conditionally offered to provide utilities because I presume they must perceive more control in that situation than if LCPS were allowed to install their own WWTP. I was simply pointing out another reason the County shouldn't force their hand on this issue, drainfields represent land which could be used for sports fields, commuter lots, etc... How can the taxpayers be served by using that land for drainfields when central utilities are available?

I never said Greenvest was his client. However, because of a Lenah contract clause, his allegiance is not clear. What I was referring to is the fact that his former client owns a property on the LCPS' most recent list of possible HS-10 sites. If his former client's property "just happens" to be selected, do you think it is appropriate for him to negotiate that contract (HS-10 site contract)? Wouldn't that seem a little wierd?

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LM, I hesitate to guess what the commission might do in either case. The commissioner in my district should recuse from Lenah, as they are on record opposing the site for some time before the staff report was completed.

I think the best thing they could do is approve each, because the western situation is dire, and the Dulles situation is as well at the middle school level, and will become that way at the high school level with further delay.

I think Mr. Burton has differing issues at play here: as one of the purchasers of Fields back in 2000, he MUST see public facilities on that site in order to justify the purchase. The population has changed dramatically since 2000, and very few will know or care about the uproar it produced at the time.

The aspect of using public facilities to channel and control growth is what Fields has in common with Lambert, as well as the financial controls that come with a big fat mistake that must then be dealt with forever more.

Nothing is supposed to be on Route 50 at all, remember?

Sarah, that's a lot of "what ifs".

I don't think any senior attorney at that firm got where they were by blindly entering into situations of potential conflict.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, Sounds like you have no problem with an attorney representing the School Board being allowed to negotiate a contract with a former client. You get all excited about a realtor making a commission but you see no problem with this type of contract negotiation. That surprises me. Please don't rehash Lenah here - it's all been said. I'm talking about the future - HS-10.

The biggest disappointment of all for so many of us is that LCPS has so disrepected western children by avoiding the issue of how to manage the overcrowding until Woodgrove does finally open. The Western Schools Task Force presented their recommendations in December 2007. Since then, LCPS has had NO response or apparent action. LCPS' latest (and only) plan is spelled out in their October 2007 (pre-election) memo: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/loudoun...

Class sizes are way over SB's maximums so they've burned through that measure a long time ago. Open dialogue with the students and their parents about EQUITABLE interim measures is LONG OVERDUE. The Task Force recommended putting the 9-12th graders back together. Where there is a will, there is a way. Unfortunately it won't be easy or free, but as I see it the solutions could cost alot but never as much as has been saved for the last 6 years by operating two clusters as one.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 14, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, don't put words in my mouth.

HS10 was never under discussion here as a contract negotiation for Chapman until you brought it up.

Sort out the positions your varying identities hold on the blogs you're working.

That's why I use one; it makes life and debate a lot easier.

Yes, I do get vocal about that commission. The realtor represents neither the owner of Lambert nor the county, yet has, by their own admission on the record, put together a deal with Mr. Miller that he doesn't have the power to sanction either.

By her own admission on the record, she wants the county to deny two schools with a positive staff report, buy land with no studies PROVING it will do what she says it will, and then sell to her client the sports developer (after the taxpayers have put in road access and utilities?).

She spoke on the record as representative of a citizen's group, in the first person.

I don't think you can be a citizens group too, while you're soliciting a commission on a speculative public sale.

If you want to go nag Purcellville to annex and then deal with the utilities, be my guest. As I've said to you before, this appears to be all about leverage for you.

Same for LI. He needs to actually do some homework before he runs his standard conspiracy on this; according to him, the school board got its butt kicked on the Woodgrove ruling. Uh, the school board wasn't a principal in the suit. It was county vs. P-ville.

The honcho is little better: he claims the realtor wasn't representing a group. Then why did Ms. Tolle announce her that way? He needs to watch the tape.

I see LI wants to recall the school board. Sounds like the Catoctin County movement on supervisors they couldn't vote for (a prerequisite for recall).

Guess what? The petition is the easy part. They have to be CONVICTED of something for it to trigger.

Believe me, it's been discussed down here for Miller, and not by me. I've had to tell several people (who voted for him), that getting the petition is easier than getting the job done.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks an atty representing public officials negotiating contracts with former private clients seems just a little bit odd.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BM - Please, you are muddying our pond w/ your Dulles detritus.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks an atty representing public officials negotiating contracts with former private clients seems just a little bit odd.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)"

Sarah, if you were still talking about Greenvest you might have a point.

"BM - Please, you are muddying our pond w/ your Dulles detritus.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)"

I'm sorry Sarah, I guess I got confused when you joined the fray on Lenah to demand that there be no relief in Dulles until things got as bad as they were at Valley.

Fields can now move a step closer to relieving Valley with this court decision.

I'm hoping all the "fiscally reponsible" who have jumped into leveraged Lambert don't give us a Fields of our own.

Nice TC touch there with the BM, Sarah.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Munsey - Sincerely no insult intended - just used your initials because it was late and I was lazy.

Atty point NOT about Ms. Munsey's pond (Dulles+Greenvest). It is about MS/HS-10, which will be needed sooner than anyone wants to admit. When Woodgrove FINALLY opens (looking more like 2011 at the soonest!) it will be over 90% capacity and Harmony 120%. Why is it politicians (like Ms Munsey seems to be) never can answer qustions with a simple yes or no. I think former business relationships have the potential to cloud decisions. At a minimum, the PERCEPTION that they do can't be denied. Clarity needed for these kids so HS-10 isn't delayed until 2020 or later!

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay Sarah, I think I get it. It is about whatever you say it is at any given moment.

No insult taken on the double-entendre initials. That's been my name about since there WAS a tc playpen, and it is funny to watch it now applied--as initials--to Dean/honcho's new blog ID.

And Sarah? I'm not running for anything, nor appointed to anything. Just a private citizen. With kids affected by the leveraging of ALL the school messes.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so please just answer my MS/HS-10 potential conflict of interest question and I promise to never use your initials again

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, as I said, I am not a public official. I am not a member of the school board, so I don't know who they may be in discussion with on those future sites.

Should they choose one that is owned by a previous client of Mr. Chapman, I've no doubt they will take care to prevent any actual or perceived conflict.

As you say, you are interested in answers on POTENTIAL, so I see no point in playing games until there is something real to discuss. Potentialities could go on all day, and maybe that is the point.

There is a real conflict to discuss with Lambert, but since LI says it doesn't matter then I guess that's that. So much for his holier-than-thou on proper process, procedure, and squeaky clean public dealings.

It is immaterial to me if you choose to use my initials. They ARE my initials.

It is the tc crowd that like to snicker about the bathroom humor implications.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, finally, for an answer which seems to be that you have trust in the system and parties involved and see no potential conflict of interest. The only reason this issue is raised is because the atty's former client's property 'just happened' to go to the top of the list when the Miller property was lost. Disrepectful treatment of the Herbert Miller family, proposed road alignments that are contrary to VDOT recommendations, misrepresentations of Town utility capacity, map errors of omission, PTO prohibitions, proposed school size far beyond the need LCPS projects in the region and size wholly incongruent with the setting, etc... all indicate BIAS AGAINST near Lovettsville site. When bias is apparent, the result naturally becomes questionable and the potential COI becomes very relevant. You may trust, but the trust I had has been lost. When children become pawns in a political power struggle, distrust is amplified.

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah, what property went to the top of the list after Miller? Wasn't the next one Grubb? It appears you are talking about a different one altogether.

Words in mouth again.

No, I don't always trust the process. It can so easily be leveraged by an active private agenda.

However, public bodies have a lot of checks and balances, which offer recourse if they are circumvented.

What is the recourse if citizens disrupt the process? None, unless the public bodies refuse to play along.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on September 15, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last fall Supv Burton indicated he was getting cost comparisons for the two top contender HS-10 sites at that time, Miller and Cangiano. That was before Miller withdrew his site in Jan08 after he'd had enough of LCPS officials and a small yet very effective group of NIMBY neighbors got Miller to withdraw.

Entire list of HS-10 sites LCPS presented can be viewed at http://smalltownschools.googlegroups.com...

Posted by stinger (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

York is looking at other sites when the County won hands-down in court? Come on! Are you kidding me? The County OWNS Fields Farm. Why in God's name should the citizens of Loudoun County have to pay for yet another site when economic times are so tight? (How many acres for a high school? Close to 100 including all of the athletic fields?) This is absolute BS. The County citizens must stop this lunacy now. Mann12, you have an interesting interpretation of the ruling. Pretty much, there isn't a soul out there who believes the ultimate, substantive war was won by the Town. I can't believe anyone in the County is deluded enough to believe that particular spin on the facts. Look on the Town of Purcellville's forum. Even those who strongly supported the Town through this crisis are conceding that the ruling is a huge blow.

Finally, Stop looking at other sites Mr. York and get on board with starting construction asap. It's so odd to me that you would even suggest another site right on the heels of the ruling. Why would you do that?

Posted by bethanybowls (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bethany Bowls--you need to read the opinion. You couldn't be more wrong. Just because the County OWNs Fields Farm does not mean it can develop it in any way it wants--it needs not only a special permit, but also, the Court ruled, a commission permit, which can only be granted under certain limited circumstances, which the proposed high school does not meet...The Court ordered the county to apply for a commission permit, which the County did not want to do. The Court reversed Judge Horne's finding that the school substantially conformed to the PUGAMP...and reversed his finding that the school was a feature shown. The County lost. Maybe that is why York is looking for anther site? continuing without Purcellville's agreement will not be supported by the Courts.... If the Planning Commission disregards the Supreme Court's findings and allows the permit, then further litigation is assured, and Judge Horne will certainly respect the Supreme Court's rulings.. The only way to settle this is for the County and Purcellville to come to agreement. The County needs to respect the PUGAMP agreement, and mitigate the impacts of a second high school in the town, and get Purcellville's Town Council's support...if it wants to build at Fields Farm...any time soon... Read the Court's opinion, it is pretty direct. Just my opinion.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mann, apparently we will amicably agree to disagree. I read the Court's opinion. Yes, the County needs a Commission Permit but the Town has no say so about it since the Fields property is not within Town limits. The PUGAMP has no teeth now. So the County alone will simply rubber stamp the permit after the appropriate notice has been given to the public. After all, everything has already been approved through the SPEX process. The commission permit is just a formality. The best option for the Town would be to Annex the property and extend utilities, but I don't think the County will accept that now. Most likely scenario is that LCPS will proceed with the on-site treatment plant. Next up: developers requesting the same thing. This ruling blows the door wide open. The Town would have continued to have leverage with developers with the PUGAMP in place if they hadn't forced a ruling. Bob and the TC did not act in the best interest of the citizens of Purcellville. All over a school. A school! Not a jail, not a Target, not 500 houses, just a frickin' high school. Hamilton certainly worked out an amicable agreement with the school system for Culbert. Purcellville should have done the same with regard to Woodgrove.

Posted by bethanybowls (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All the court said was that the PUGAMP agreement required a commission permit from the County. It upheld the PUGAMP, and any permit MUST conform to the PUGAMP. You are right that the Planning Commission may just "rubber stamp" this, and not really do their statutory job of looking at the PUGAMP to decide if the sewage treatment plant, and other proposals for the school meet the plan, but I have more faith in their integrity. I think Julie Pastor, and others at the County, will have a hard time recommending this as conforming to the PUGAMP, despite Mr. Burton's influence. It is not too late for Purcellville, and I think it is in the interests of all--especially Mr. Burton and Mr. York, to sit down again and hammer out an agreement. I think the county is obligated to pay to mitigate the impacts on Purcellville, and I think they should stop fighting and just do it.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on September 16, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So how much of my tax dollars has been wasted on legal fees? How many times do we have to go thru this? Please spend my money wastefully.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Depends Funnyguy. Are you a Town of P-ville and County resident or just a County resident? I wonder how many developers were sitting by watching how all of this would play out? No diss to the attornies representing the County and School Board, but I'm sure the Toll Bros of the world have excellent attornies on retainage. Ones who specialize in obliterating UGAMP agreements. It will be interesting to see how this ruling plays out in terms of development, if the housing market ever comes back up again. As for the school, it will open in Fall 2010 at Fields Farm.

Posted by bethanybowls (anonymous) on September 17, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)