Neighbors Spar Over Horse Barn

" Ms. Artman also told the Board that the barns would be "hard to see" from the scenic by way of Harmony Church Road, when anyone who drives that road can see the blue porta potty the Earlys put in the middle of where they want their super sized barns the day after their loss in Circuit Court last fall. The barns will be fully visible to Harmony Church Road, despite Ms. Artman's statements under oath to the contrary. The setback for storage buildings associated with stables is 175 feet, and Ms. Artman ignored the use that the Earlys certified to when they applied for their permits. In fact, the use shown on all their plans was stables, and the use they certified to was Agricultural Support (which is what an "equestrian faciltiy" or "stable" is) and we read the zoning ordinance to require not only a 175 foot setback but also site plan review, for lights, parking, manure management, entrance, etc. which review was also exempted. She says this use is basic animal husbandry--then why do they need a race track? Why did Ms. Artman allow the Earlys to "separate" the two wings of their "barn" to avoid the size limitation kicking in siting review under the recorded easement on the property? Conservation/preservation was handed to the County on a silver platter, and then they ignore it. Mr. Settle, I am not sure why you want to bash me for asking that preservation restrictions for this property be honored. Preservationist should be very concerned. Anyone who knows anything about my positions knows that I have been very consistent. I do believe that the County owes it to the public to fairly apply the laws, and not make special exceptions for people they "like" and people they don't "like." It is not fair to liberally apply the law to one landowner, then to ridiculously stretch the laws to tie up another unfairly. Just like with the high school and honoring agreements for adjacent land, I think this Board should honor the agreements made with respect to the farm that our family worked so hard to protect. If this property were in Middleburg or Unison or Waterford, everyone would be up in arms, but since it is in Hamilton, Mr. Burton really does not care. "

" Sally, Ms. Artman has confirmed for me that the County setback is 50 feet. The Earlys are in perfect right and in violation of no County code. Why would you sign on with the "property rights" wingnuts in bashing the Supervisors and then do a complete turnabout and wish to strip the Earlys of their "property rights"? Do you believe in property rights only when it's convienant for you and you alone? "

" Kim, There are restrictions on the property recorded in the land records (scenic easement, conservation easement, etc.) and the price was based on those restrictions being honored. As the seller, living next door, I do have an interest in those restrictions being enforced, and I don't think they are being honored. They may only allow a maximum of 4500 square feet of new farm structures (I think that is the true intent of the language) but in any case sitiing should be reviewed. We are just asking for the siting to be reviewed. He has 147 acres-- is he saying that if we had only sold him 100 acres he could not find a place to put these? Why does he want to put them as close as he can to the only house exposed to his business, only 50 feet off my property line, approximately a mile away from his home and entrance? For the business there, we don't think it is "basic animal husbandry" which is what gets him exempted. He has several businesses there, and a proposed race track, which are not "basic animal husbandry" according to publicly available records. The exemption is narrow, and new agribusiness is subject to site plan review and siting review and other things like that. The new zoning ordinance and the Historic District are set up to protect everyone. "

" sally its clear that you are upset about this - however... its not your property any longer. mr early has clearly bought the property and its rights, and has every right to exercise his rights on his property. as do you. there was no 'very discounted price' - i'm an agent, and if your family didn't like the price, then the offer should have been rejected. that comment about price has no bearing on what he wants to do to HIS property. 2nd, its an agricultural use property - and the early family is going to use it for agriculture. 3rd, the early family are good people who have improved this county for years, as your family has. it seems that its time to let mr. and mrs. early use their property the way it was rightfully intended and leave them alone. "

" To Dean Settle, My neighbor's 147 acre property is the eased property--where all the development rights were given up. I have been punished and attacked because I said the conservation easement that was supposed to protect the mature forest, the scenic easement that was supposed to protect the landscape, and the historic district are not being enforced. PEC studied this property, its mature forest, and its importance to Goose Creek, but then when it was clear cut, they went silent. Do they support conservation or not? The property can't be subdivided, but the subdivision rules would have required a 50 percent tree save. Why did VOF ask the Earlys to go to the UVA Institute of Environmental Negotiation to discuss the reforestation of the property and then abruptly change their minds? "

" Why would you sign on as one of 25 landowners to sue the County over the new Zoning if you still aren't trying to subdivide your "eased" property? The PEC was pretty graphic about confused about your "dual" intent when we discussed this back in 2006. I was really intent on getting some answers for you, but the deeper I delved into the details, the further I wanted to be from you. "

" to desertson; We sold it to pay death taxes. We sold it for a very reduced price, due to the severe restrictions, scenic easement, conservation easement, etc. PEC studied the mature forest on property, which represented 5% of the mature forest in the subshed, and the easement was taken to protect Goose Creek. The mature timber on the property was worth a small fortune. We thought the forest was our family's gift to the public. If our family had not restricted the land, we could have sold it for much more. "

" To Sally Mann: If the property was so important to you and your family why did you sell it? I think you made your profit selling the land and now wish to control it remotely, through the clever application and interpretation of land use restrictions (it is a time honored practice). Sounds like agricultural use to me. "

" To aldie resident, Our familiy eased this property, giving up all the residential developemt rights. the state and federal government paid for the restrictions we placed on this property. There will never be houses there, unless VOF and the county continue to ignore the easement restrictions they are supposed to be enforcing. "

" The Historic District Regulations requre review of any new structure in the historic district to protect the historic landscape unless the Zoning Administrator certifies that the structure will have no detrimental impact on the district. This farm was the site of the last skirmish in the civil war in Loudoun, where my great grandfather (one of Mosby's Rangers) was wounded and captured by the Union army. It is pristine, and our family went to a lot of trouble to protect it, putting it in the Hisoric District, and placing conservation and scenic easements on it--that I have asserted have not been honored or enforced. We think buiilding huge structures (6600 square feet footprint) half the length of a football field at a high point in the area, visible for miles, on a scenic by way, and only 50 feet off our property line, very close to our house, blocking the views into the historic district is a detrimental impact to this pristiine landscape of the district, and the siting should be reviewed to site them with the thought of trying to preserve this pristine civil war era farm. The Earlys say that the Historic District is only for them to enjoy, and that as next door neighbors, we have no right to look into the district, if they choose to block our views. The Historic District is for everyone to enjoy, and it was set up as a value to everyone in the county. How can people with easements and in historic districts argue that the power lines should not go through their scenic vistas, and yet then they want to block everyone elses' view with a solid structure, just as wide a swath as the power lines? They want the tax benefits and protections of easements and the Historic District, but not the responsibility to site their buildings to preserve the historic landscape, if possible? My family sold this property to the Earlys. My signature is on the deed, and we have disputed if he could clear cut the farm to put these uses on the property --which we believed was supposed to be conserved as a nature preserve by a conservation easement our family recorded against the property. There is also a scenic easement placed on this property, which requires the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to review the siting, mass, etc of all structures larger than 4500 square feet. These buildings were originally applied for on one permit, but "separated" into two builidings -- which, gosh, the County then said they could issue permits without VOF review. This is a circumvention of the scenic easement. if you can build as many side by side 4500 square feet buildings as you want, the easement is meaningless. That was not the intent of the easement, which could be construed to only allow a total of 4500 square feet of new farm structures. There are lots of places these structures could be put on this 147 acre property. Their property is ringed with thick 250 year old forest, except next ot us, where it is open, because of the clearing. We used to be separated by approximately 50 acres of woods, which was cut down. All we are asking the Board to do is to send the matter to the Historic District Review Committee for review of the siting--which has never been reviewed by anyone. Our family has been farming in this County for hundreds of years (both my mothers family and my fathers family.) This is not traditional farming. This operation is "super sized" buildings for rural economy uses, not just "breeding,' but also a thoroughbred training track and other commercial uses. The zoning ordinance is supposed to require a site plan for these kinds of uses, reviewing security lighting, parking, manure removal, clients traffic, VDOT entrance safety, etc. This is not just basic animal husbandry, but a professional breeding facility--and a training facility with a 5/8ths mile flat track. "Basic animal husbandry" (a specific use defined in the zoning ordinance) does not require a track. Brood mares are rarely even broken to ride. We think our neighbors have gotten special treatment from many at the state level (VOF) and here in the County. It is not right. And we don't think the placement of their structures is about any practical farming concern. Our neighbors have asked several times to buy our property, which we have declined. We think the placement is about devaluing our property. Our neighbors had no problem with our small clustered conservation designed subdivision (on ten acres next to the town of Hamilton) as long as we would give them commercial access through our property. They have very little road frontage, and a poor entrance, and we have a lot of good road frontage. We feel like they are punishing us for not agreeing to their requests, and that they were responsible for our small subdivision's failure--our attempt to put lots into our kids names. Our opinion is that the western powers that be, including PEC and Mr. Burton, are punishing us for criticising VOF for not enforcing these conservation or scenic easements, which have been paid for with state and federal money. We wonder how many friends the Earlys have made donating the largest purse to the fall races at the Warrenton Gold Cup the last few years, and if these people have assisted them in getting around all the supposedly tight restrictions on their property. True old time farmers don't set out to create the biggest nuisance they can to hurt their neighbors. Country neighbors rely on one another. True Loudoun farmers are kind and helpful to their neighbors, and do everything they can to be respectful and help each other out. New rural agricultural pursuits can horribly conflict with existing uses, especially if the larger rural modern agribusiness/commercial landowner goes out of his or her way to create nuisances. If agribusiness bullies are allowed to pick on smaller neighbors who have better road frontage, or desirable land for whatever reason, then there will be lots big fights over characterizing what is "farming." It is convenient to characterize your use as "farming" when that may get you exempt from all regulation. This 147 acre farm pays virtually no tax because it has a scenic easement on it. What is the value to the public of a scenic easement, and why are we giving him a big assessment break, if he can do this kind of thing? We are hoping the Board will do the right thing, and ask the Historic District Review Board to REVIEW the siting, since the property is so large, and there are so many possible places to locate these structures that will not impact anyone. "

" If the family can't make their horse business a commerical success, the neighbors will be looking at more houses, higher taxes and increased traffic from another development. As a 60 year resident of Loudoun, I'd much rather look at horse barns...I find housing developments offensive. "

" the appellants say the Earlys' horse breeding business is really a commercial enterprise and should not be considered an agricultural use. Good Grief! I've got shocking news for you -- agriculture IS a commercial enterprise! In fact, it is an INDUSTRIAL activity. Agriculture is more than just pretty green meadows with picturesque animals lazing about. It is a business. Unfortunately, we are going to see more and more of these complaints as the county fills with city folk. Sooner or later, farming will end up being banned. "