Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee moves to close 'double‑dip' loophole: conservation easement land won’t count toward extra cluster subdivision density
Summary
Stakeholders urged and the committee directed staff to prepare code language preventing land protected by conservation easement from being used to increase development density on neighboring parcels; staff will draft text and determine whether changes can apply to prior proposals.
Loudoun County stakeholders and committee members raised concerns that existing local rules could be used to transfer or count development rights from land under conservation easement to increase density on neighboring parcels — a practice many called a "double‑dip" that undermines the purpose of easements.
Conservation and farmland advocates urged that easement land, particularly where development rights have been extinguished, should not be used to boost allowable density on other parcels. "If we as a community support the idea that farming and green spaces have a future ... we shouldn't be allowing land in conservation easement to increase the density on a neighboring parcel," said Chris Van Vlack, a conservation stakeholder.
Staff explanation and committee guidance
Planning staff said the concern arose during review of a boundary line/cluster subdivision proposal in which development rights from an eased parcel would effectively increase allowable lots on an adjacent property. The committee directed staff to draft ordinance language that would prevent counting conserved land toward additional cluster subdivision density. Staff noted that easements vary and some record language reserves a limited lot yield; the draft will need to respect the legal terms of individual easements while preventing the repurposing of extinguished easement rights to increase density elsewhere.
Retroactivity and existing approvals
Committee members asked whether the change could be applied retroactively to prior approvals. Staff cautioned that recorded approvals and third‑party easement agreements introduce legal complexity; staff said they will research whether and to what extent any change can apply to applications already approved or recorded, and will identify the appropriate effective date.
Next steps
Staff will prepare draft ordinance text to close the loophole and will report back on whether changes can or should apply to earlier approvals or recorded easements. The draft will be circulated to the committee and to conservation‑easement stakeholders for review.
