|
|
||
Controversial Stafford County ordinance designed to protect the Potomac River is no longer in effect Date published: 2/14/2010
BY JONAS BEALS Stafford County officials have decided to settle a lawsuit with a developer rather than fight to keep a controversial environmental protection ordinance in place. The settlement will effectively nullify the Potomac River Resource Protection Overlay District ordinance that was designed to limit erosion and runoff by restricting construction on slopes or near streams. The overlay district affected property east of U.S. 1, mainly in the northeastern portion of the county. The suit was filed by Stafford Lakes Limited Partnership, which sold the Crow's Nest property to the county and owns more acreage west of the peninsula between Raven and Brooke roads. The company plan to develop that property, and the ordinance had the potential to decrease the number of lots in its proposed subdivision. Stafford Lakes lost in Stafford Circuit Court, but appealed the ruling to the Virginia Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case based on questions of implementation rather than the intent or content of the ordinance. "The issue appears to be the way the ordinance was initiated and advertised," County Attorney Joe Howard said. "Any procedural issue is ruled against the county if they aren't 100 percent. It puts the burden on the locality." Howard said that he and his deputy attorneys had discussed the possibility of a challenge, and that they agreed it would be best to drop out of the lawsuit rather than defend it. Supervisors confirmed that course of action by voting 5-2 Jan. 19 to settle the case. Supervisors Harry Crisp and Bob Woodson, who voted against the settlement, are the only current board members who voted in favor of the overlay district ordinance passed in 2008. At the time, the board was controlled by three Democrats and an independent who passed a number of ordinances designed to tighten environmental regulation. The balance of power on the board has since shifted to a Republican majority, all of whom voted in favor of the settlement. "We're going to have to fix the legal problem, and that means going back to the drawing board," said Supervisor Paul Milde, who voted for the settlement. "The ordinance has some very good intentions, and I don't think we should abandon it altogether."
what ou know about the river and its condition and trends . i've got a minute
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1166/circ1166.pdf
but I'l make an exception. You are right, the river is a sewer so let's just make it worse and also be sure to condemn the Chesapeake to become a foul, poisonous dead sea.
you make me laugh. i've been around this river almost 40 years i can remember when it had a petrochemical sheen and you could see the human waste from blue plains. i've seen it recover and watched the wildlife recover with it so the sniveling you is a hoot
Please answer some questions. Why is the County's complete surrender in the Potomac River case characterized as a "settlement"? Why can't the lawyers in the County Attorney's office step in for the lawyer, who previously argued the case? Can't they write and present legal arguments? If so, why is there a need to hire an "outside consultant, which would cost the county additional money? If not, what kind of legal service are the County and the taxpayers receiving from the County Attorney's office?
PC member Kirkman's dream. The street ditch in front of your house and the swale that carries water around your house would now be an intermittent stream and subject to the CBPA. If people wanted to fix the rivers and the bay, they would start spending money on something that really needs fixing, like WWTPs.
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=492
http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=142
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/images/sources_of_nitrogen_2009.gif
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=913
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
