What started as a Jan. 22 public hearing to hear comment on Centex Homes application to rezone 27 acres along Gum Spring Road has become an issue of ethics, with resident Sandra Chaloux questioning whether Planning Commissioner Barbara Munsey (Dulles) had the right to question her about her affiliations.
Chaloux, the president of the Gum Spring Regional Citizens Network, and attorney Daniel Gray, made a presentation to the commission against the proposed development that would allow for the development of 46 single-family homes and 49 townhomes in the area between Stone Ridge, Westview Estates and Mercer Middle School. The area is currently designated for single-family residential development at a density up to four units per acre.
Chaloux was allowed to make the 10-minute presentation because she had requested the time as the representative of an organization.
FOLLOWING CHALOUX'S presentation and 11 other speakers, Commissioner Suzanne Volpe (Sugarland Run) began to question Chaloux about her organization and the 200 people that signed a petition opposing the application.
"We've had petitions before and then have people come up and say they didn't sign the petition and that someone forged their name," Volpe said at the meeting.
Munsey also questioned Chaloux about the petition, asking where the petition was offered to residents and why there were people who did not live in Loudoun County listed on the petition. Chaloux said anyone who drove Route 50 and would be affected by additional development was invited to sign the petition.
Munsey's line of questioning began with challenging some of the facts in Chaloux and Gray's presentation, including overcrowding of Pinebrook Elementary School by 490 students.
"In the school CIP, my understanding of that [statistic] is that is if the scheduled schools don't open," Munsey said. "I think there is some confusion with their numbers there."
Chaloux said their presentation came from county-generated information.
"We're not making this information up," she said.
At the meeting, Munsey also pointed out that Gray had asked why there was not a pedestrian path between the proposed development and Pinebrook Elementary, when Pinebrook is not close to the property in question.
"You would have to cross a lot of property to get there," Munsey said.
CHALOUX'S MAIN complaint about Munsey's questions came when the commissioner asked if Chaloux or her home business, Chaloux Environmental Communications Inc. did any work with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). The PEC has long been vocal in its opposition to new residential development in the county.
When Chaloux said that her home business was separate from her work with the Gum Spring Regional Citizens Network, Munsey asked if the group was associated with Campaign for Loudoun's Future, another organization that has actively opposed residential development in the county. Chaloux acknowledged that the network had at one time been listed as a member of Campaign for Loudoun's Future, but was not any longer because members wished to be an independent citizens group.
"What's interesting to me is she knows so much about me, when she's never even contacted me," Chaloux said. "The impression we have is just because we have opposition to this rezoning we are a target."
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, Chaloux submitted an e-mail to the Board of Supervisors, County Attorney Jack Roberts, the Planning Commission and members of the media, relating the incident and questioning the ethics of Munsey's questions.
"These questions are not asked when developers pack meetings with people who are clearly their employees or subcontractors," Chaloux wrote in her e-mail. "As a result of her inexcusable actions, I hereby wish to file a formal complaint against Ms. Munsey and demand that she be immediately dismissed from the Planning Commission or at a very minimum recuse herself from further involvement in this pending zoning applications."
Nancy McCormick, from the county's public information office, said she was not aware of any official process for filing a formal complaint with the county, but that the Board of Supervisors would be the only governing body to take action against a commissioner since it's the board who appoints the commissioners. Phone calls to Roberts requesting comment were not returned.
As of press time, Chaloux had not yet heard from Roberts, but had spoken to some members of the board who were considering bringing it up for discussion at their Feb. 6 meeting.
"Right now, we are sort of in a holding pattern," she said.
MUNSEY SAID SHE believed it was important to know the affiliations of Chaloux's organization, in light of the recent issues regarding disclosure in local government. She said that she believes there needs to be a level playing field with people representing both sides of an issue being held to the same set of standards.
"Applicants have to do full disclosure," she said. "Why shouldn't people who advocate for a certain side have it too? Maybe disclosure is a good thing, but let's all do it."
Since Chaloux was representing a group receiving more time before the commission than an ordinary citizen and having legal counsel, Munsey said her line of questioning was appropriate.
"If you were there as a group [representative], then people are going to ask you questions," she said. "If you were there as an individual, then why did you get 18 minutes for a presentation?"
While Munsey said she has not heard of any action being taken against her by the board, she said that would be up to the supervisors.
"I really don't know what's going to happen," she said.