| Home Page | Return to Previous Page |
Prince
William
Citizens for Balanced Growth Balancing traffic, tax, job growth, public school, and quality of life issues with residential growth. |
|
|
|
|||
| Wally
Covington, Brentsville
Supervisor (Republican) |
||
| Covington emphasizes developer rights, Dillon Rule | ||
| (13 April 2006 e-mail to Prince William County Republican Committee in response to growing Republican opposition to the Brentswood development/rezoning request) | ||
| -----
Original Message -----
From:
Wally
Covington
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:43
PM
Subject: Brentswood Debate
Contrary to popular belief, I have not yet
made up my mind concerning the proposed Brentswood development,
pending public testimony, the applicant’s presentation and rebuttal,
board questions, and board discussion – otherwise known as a public
hearing. What I do embrace about Brentswood –
and any other proposed rezoning in the Brentsville District -- is the
time honored republican principle that an individual can offer a new
idea in the marketplace of free enterprise and the individual is
guaranteed a fair, balanced, factual
airing of that idea. At the risk of
offending
some, I think a review of some
Various county and state agencies, in
addition to
In Virginia – and 39 other states ---
the Dillon Rule (authored by a Republican) restricts elected officials
from applying the suggestions made by many in the recent threads I’ve
read about Brentswood.
Traditionally
Ironically, the Dillon Rule was initiated by
those who, like many who have chimed in on the thread, had a distrust
of local government. In
We can’t have it both ways. The Prince William Comprehensive Plan (upon
which
many agencies, including Planning staff make their determinations) is
not a regulatory document and adherence to the objectives therein is
not mandatory by law. The local zoning
ordinance (which is regulatory) can be changed
simply when an individual property owner requests a change by the
process of a public hearing before the local Board of County
Supervisors. Thus, the Brentswood proposal
was
properly initiated through a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
(CPA) and rezonings.
The “next step” in the process is to
give the proposed development and proffer statement a public
hearing before the Board of County Supervisors. The Board will consider
Brentswood at our May 16th meeting at
In the meantime, I intend to avoid any
potential conflict of interest by reserving judgment
on this rezoning until all the parties have had a chance to make their
case at the public hearing. (Section 2.2-3112A2 of the VA Code Ann.) To
otherwise influence the process by which this application of law is
administered, e.g. an elected official taking a public stance on a
rezoning prior to a public vote, compromises the elected official and
in my opinion, negates the fundamental spirit of the Dillon Rule.
What is difficult about the Brentswood proposal
is that in
In the case of Brentswood – real money
proffered by the developer --- as opposed to VDOT/USDOT allocations
strung out over six year plans revised each year – does potentially
give Prince William County more authority, more local
control over land use in this case. The playing field rendered
unequal by the Dillon Rule, suddenly becomes more competitive when real
dollars are delivered to a local jurisdiction.
Local governments have been recently
criticized for hiding behind the Dillon Rule while in the same breath,
citizens criticize elected officials for failing to recognize the
cumulative affect of the “piecemeal” approach to rezonings. Viewed within the context of vested property
rights, the vast scope of the Brentswood project and unprecedented
associated proffers presents a unique opportunity to
I caution you to be open-minded and ensure that
you are quoting fact prior to pointing fingers at your elected
officials. Our party will not be served
well by
institutionalizing and perpetuating misinformed legislative policy.
I appreciate the invitation to appear before
the Republican Committee in a debate on this issue.
However,
a better idea would be to invite the applicant to present, or debate
Mr. Pugh. To better educate citizens about the legislative aspects of
this issue, I am happy to discuss the
pros
& cons Brentswood, but I do not want to be pitted as the “pro”
speaker in a debate. Also I would hope
that
the discussion would be organized and publicized in such a way with no
more than two Supervisors appearing in an official capacity which might
lead citizens to think we are violating the spirit of the Freedom
of Information Act.
My office door is open. My
email address and office phone number are published so that any member
of the public who wishes to lobby for or against a specific proposal
has access. I believe I have been
available to
you all in this respect.
I intend to approach the
Brentswood
vote in the same fair, unbiased way in which I have cast every other
vote as Brentsville Supervisor, as an informed legislator, delegated
authority by the party who nominated him to represent them and
governing by the will of the people who voted for him to serve them. I don’t think
you’d expect
anything less of me.
FYI – I will be “out of commission” for a few days as I celebrate the holiday with my family. Happy Easter/Passover to all. |