|
|
||
Spotsy agricultural measure tabled Date published: 2/11/2009
BY DAN TELVOCK
After almost three-dozen people opined on Spotsylvania County Supervisor Emmitt Marshall's proposal to allow 3-acre agricultural lots, he had the vote tabled for 30 days. More than 100 people were present at the public hearing last night, with a slim majority in support of Marshall's plan to allow landowners with agricultural land to create a 3-acre lot once a year, with a maximum of 10 in a lifetime. Currently, agricultural land is zoned for 5- and 10-acre lots. That many people haven't been to a county board meeting since supervisors in November 2006 voted to preserve portions of the Chancellorsville Battlefield. Marshall said he had some legal matters he wanted the county attorney to review with the ordinance before the entire board voted. He proposed this plan because, he said, rural landowners are struggling, and selling off smaller acreage will help preserve family farms. Planning staff said it is impossible to predict how many people would take advantage of dividing a 3-acre lot, but there is the unlikely potential to almost double the growth in rural Spotsylvania. Opinions varied greatly from those strongly in support of allowing the smaller lots because of property rights to those against the measure because it could lead to rural sprawl and cost all taxpayers millions in new infrastructure needs. Some landowners argued that a lot of land would not be fit for a drain field, so homes could not be built on it. They doubted there would be a rush of applications. Alfred King, a Fawn Lake resident, told supervisors that this vote may be the most important one of their terms. He said the proposal has the potential to open the county's rural land to almost 9,000 more home lots. "There is no reason to pass an ordinance that will more than double our growth rate in order to help a few families in this time of economic crisis," he said. Bill Broaddus, who owns a 352-acre farm on Partlow Road, said he didn't think the proposal went far enough. He said if he and his brother were to have medical problems, the entire farm would have to be sold if this proposal was not approved.
...then our taxes will go up to benefit 3 supervisors who might like to subdivide their land!!! This is an outrage!!! In these dire times we don't need higher taxes....period. Looking forward to next election and defeating these guys.
Why would Mr. Marshall want to postpone a vote on his pro-growth proposal? He said to talk over legal issues. This proposal has been moving forward since last October. One would think that Mr. Marshall has had plenty of time to talk about legal issues with every attorney in the country by now. The only question that I have is, "what does he (Marshall) have up his sleeve next" ? This disaster of a pro-growth proposal should have been defeated last night.
Why would Mr. Marshall want to postpone a vote on his pro-growth proposal? He said to talk over legal issues. This proposal has been moving forward since last October. One would think that Mr. Marshall has had plenty of time to talk about legal issues with every attorney in the country by now. The only question that I have is, "what does he (Marshall) have up his sleeve next" ? This disaster of a pro-growth proposal should have been defeated last night.
This action would benefit only a few, including some on boards of Spotsy. This transparent proposal should never have made it this far and to have it tabled is wasting more time. It should have been defeated and shredded. Why should the citizens of Spotsylvania pay for this in more roofs, higher taxes, more sprawl, etc. when there are almost 4,000 lots already out there. Surely there must be more important issues for these self-serving county officials to focus on that would benefit all the people.
You can read why Wolfman's comment was deleted in this blog post.
http://fredericksburg.com/blogs/view?blogger_id=21&p=1234373737
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
