Loudoun County; DGS to convey by quitclaim deed, certain real property of former Town of Waterford. (HB1983)

Introduced By

Del. Joe May (R-Leesburg)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Vesting of certain real property in the County of Loudoun. Vests real property of the former Town of Waterford in the County of Loudoun. The Board of Supervisors may alter or vacate streets, alleys, and other public rights of way of the former town. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/09/2013Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13101537D
01/09/2013Referred to Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns
01/11/2013Assigned CC & T sub: #2
01/24/2013Subcommittee recommends reporting (11-Y 0-N)
01/25/2013Reported from Counties, Cities and Towns (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/28/2013Read first time
01/29/2013Read second time and engrossed
01/30/2013Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (99-Y 0-N)
01/30/2013VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (99-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/31/2013Constitutional reading dispensed
01/31/2013Referred to Committee on Local Government
02/12/2013Reported from Local Government (14-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/14/2013Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2013Read third time
02/15/2013Passed Senate (35-Y 3-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/21/2013Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1983ER)
02/21/2013Signed by Speaker
02/21/2013Signed by President
03/22/2013Governor's recommendation received by House
03/22/2013Governor's substitute printed 13105674D-H1
04/02/2013Placed on Calendar
04/03/2013G Approved by Governor-Chapter 753 (effective 7/1/13)
04/03/2013House concurred in Governor's recommendation (91-Y 1-N)
04/03/2013VOTE: ADOPTION (91-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
04/03/2013Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (35-Y 3-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/03/2013G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/03/2013Reenrolled bill text (HB1983ER2)
04/03/2013Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/03/2013Signed by President as reenrolled
04/03/2013Enacted, Chapter 753 (effective 7/1/13)
04/03/2013G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0753)


This bill mentions Loudoun, Waterford.


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 2 minutes.


Jordan Gallows writes:

DO NOT PASS HB1983! This is a takings of private property! I am shocked that after 75% of Virginians voted for the eminent domain amendment that this Bill exists! JILL VOGEL sits on the board of the very insurance company involved in this Waterford mess! Conflict of Interest!!!! DO NOT PASS THIS BILL

Say No writes:

This is called an illegal taking. If they want to remove a cloud on a title, they must get a legal determination from the court.

Thief In The Night writes:

Shame on you if you allow this travesty to continue. The land that is being stolen does have an owner and "due process" is being denied them. Eminent Domain does not apply to the issue either. Clouded titles must be cleared up in court not through illegal "Land Grabbing".

Jordan Gallows writes:

HB1983 is a LAND GRAB of epic proportions! This is an illegal taking! WHo is behind this travesty? Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) enviro-crazies? I'm all for keeping farmers farming on farmland, but when these control freaks take away private property rights, it is time to expose them for their real agendas!


DO NOT PASS HB1983 writes:

OMG! Who introduced this bill?
75% of Virginians voted for the eminent domain amendment ---- we Virginians value our most fundamental rights that include property. This is an illegal takings of private property rights.

Isn't this considered what some call "career suicide" for Joe May.

Illegal Taking writes:

No. This bill circumvents process and law. If they want to find out the owner, they need to do so through the deeds. SAY NO. It is contrary to eminent domain law.

Save Waterford writes:


Fed Up writes:

I think Virginia is catching on. The legislators need to understand we voted on and passed the constitutional amendment to stop eminent domain. This sounds like more back door shenanigans.

Voice of Reason writes:

The vast majority of Waterford citizens support this bill. It will facilitate the removal of clouds on the title of private property. This is what happens under current law when town charters are repealed. People who think this is an unconstitutional taking don't understand the constitution or the bill. As the county vacates its interest in "paper" streets and alleys in favor of adjoining landowners, as requested by the citizens of Waterford, the opposition will hopefully finally understand this.

Chris Shipe writes:

This is not an illegal taking and this was not instigated by Loudoun Mutual. This follows the law rather than circumventing it. This is a long over due clarification and closure to an issue that should have been dealt with in 1936 when Waterford was disbanded. The town of Waterford and Loudoun County simply didn't properly record the transfer of the roads and alleys. Furthermore, the county has no interest in taking over the unused roads or alleys and have pledged through a resolution that they will work with the private property owners to take care of this issue. This is a bill to help all the residents of Waterford.

Nicholas Ratcliffe Waterford writes:

My wife and I have lived here in Waterford for 35 years with one of these alleyways that has not been used as such for more than 75 years( and most probably never), based on the memory of the prior owner who lived here for 40 years.
We are very comfortable with the proposal of the Board of Supervisors to take this property which we now use. We have confidence that the County will do as they promise, and redistribute these lands in an equable way among those neighbors who are proximal and agree to the plan with their neighbors.
The shrill comments by some in this blog just don't represent the wishes or concerns of Waterford residents as a whole, as witnessed by the Waterford Citizens Association strong support of the proposed measures.

Jeff Bean writes:

Don't you admire the pseudonyms that the nay-sayers come up with! Only one is an actual resident of Waterford. The others are the duplicate identities of our principal adversary and the one friend in dissension, who doesn't even live near Waterford. I am an actual 17 year resident of Waterford, and am directly affected by the problem of "uncertain" ownership of the former town, now village of Waterford streets, alleys, and properties. Those of us that are, shall we say, "quieter" than the nay-sayers, have worked hard to solve this "uncertainty" problem for many years.
The problem came to an expensive head in the form of a lawsuit filed against myself and about twenty other parties including Loudoun County, VDOT, Dominion Power, Loudoun Water, seven neighboring families, Loudoun Mutual Ins., and anybody else that our adversary could drag into court. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff having filed a fraudulent deed attempted to illegally TAKE LAND (OMGosh!) that the court determined did not belong to the plaintiff. Judge Jeffrey Parker was able to see the ILLEGAL TAKING for what it was, and put the kibosh on the adversarial plaintiff quite firmly. Firm enough indeed, that the plantiff's appeal to the State Supreme Court was denied, the plaintiff's request for a re-hearing was denied, the plaintiff's request for a reconsideration was denied. Quite simply, the plaintiff had no case and LOST.
Now we have an opportunity to correct the circumstances that enabled that lawsuit and future lawsuits to occur. HB-1983 will accomplish what should have been completed in 1936. Other than (one) property owner, we have an entire village, Foundation, Citizens Association, and most importantly, BOS that are ready and willing to solve multiple boundary line and ownership issues. All we need is the legislation to begin.
Please note; When the town was surveyed and chartered in 1875, every lot was clearly defined, as were the streets and alleys including their widths. Not one lot included ownership of any portion of any street or alley. The evidence supporting town ownership of the public rights-of-way is overwhelming. There will be no "land grab" from private property owners.
Please pass HB-1983 so we, the quieter supporters of this Historic Landmark can close the door to frivolous litigation by those that have attempted to de-list and un-do the entire District. Thank you for your support - - Jeff Bean (real name, real resident)

Road Law writes:

HB 1983 incorrectly states "whose charter was repealed by Chapter 280 of the Acts of Assembly of 1936". The 1936 Act (Chapter 280, page 468) says: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, that an act entitled to incorporate the town of Waterford, in Loudoun County, approved March eleventh, eighteen hundred and seventy-five and all amendments thereof be, and same are, hereby repealed." The entirety of the 1875 Act, which incorporated the Town, was repealed not merely the Town charter, as incorrectly stated in HB 1983. The 1875 Act was rendered meaningless with this Act of 1936. VDOT prepared the only "revised and recorded" map of the streets/roads in August 1937.

Mike writes:

Hate to burst any bubbles for the Waterford residents but most of us in this County know most of them are worse than a bunch of spoiled children. In order to clear up your title, a person's title company takes the matter to court. Have you heard of title insurance? Only in Waterford, would they try to pass a law just for them and only in Waterford would they think they are entitled to such a special law. Sorry, you do not walk on water. Kill the bill. It is a joke.

Real Property Owner writes:

Real property owners throughout the County, state, and U.S. are entitled notice when an unlike or like municipality seeks to merge or consolidate. Because the entire 1875 Act was repealed, a factual determination is required to establish what assets and liabilities ever existed. Vesting is never automatic. It is up to the voters as to whether or not the merge should occur and if it is in their best interest. There is a legal process to follow that typically requires a petition to the court. A bill is not the right vehicle. This REAL real property OWNER in Loudoun County say this seeks to circumvent just about every applicable law already on the books. If passed, it immediately invalidates title to a whole lot of properties.

Jordan Gallows writes:

I don't live in the nasty viper den but I'm too familiar with the entitlement and special favors given and demanded for decades. I pay taxes in the County, not just a resident. I would like the County to cut down my dead oak tree but that just wouldn't be right. My tree, my problem. The County shouldn't be fixing these NIMBY title problems.