Thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately, the wording of this
particular section leads the reader to understand that one cannot do
anything on their property unless it is already approved by York County's
zoning administrator. So, in essence, we must go to York County with every
little thing we plan to do and double check we're specifically allowed to do
it in addition to making sure we're not doing something prohibited - sounds
a bit "parental" to me. Is there a simple posted list of these approved and
prohibited items or are we to dig through the entire Zoning Ordinance book
before we do anything on our own property? Since this wording is going back
to what has been in the code since the 1980's, I will hope that the current
and future administrations will err on the side of freedom regarding this
personal property rights issue. However, with this wording, there is an open
door to oppressive review which worries me for the exact reason you state:
"...depending on how you interpret the zoning code..." Who controls the
interpretations?
I'll have to do more research about Virginia's Dillon Rule to fully
understand its implications in this matter. Thanks so much for taking the
time to respond with your explanation. I look forward to future discussions
after the holidays to understand the full extent of this portion of the code
and its costs. As always, my concern is that citizens' personal property
rights are protected and least restrictive. I applaud the changes the Board
made Wednesday evening regarding expansion of rights to own chickens on
personal property - a positive step in the right direction.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
All the best,
Lynda
From: Thomas Shepperd [mailto:tgshep@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:29 PM
To: 'Terry & Lynda Fairman'
Cc: Ggdirect@aol.com; 'Brenda P.'; mike@watsonfordelegate.com;
jrhgch@verizon.net; 'Tom Norment'; Hrichak, George Sr.; Noll, Sheila S.;
Walt Zaremba; Wiggins, Don
Subject: RE: the China zoning provision: l hope we have just begun to fight
in Yorktown!!
Lynda,
You are right. The changes made at the public meeting reset us back to
pre-SB1190 and actually enhanced property rights. There were some
clarifications and administrative changes, which I do not consider
restrictive. I believe Greg is referring to the issue of "inclusive" vs.
"exclusive" zoning, which was not considered as part of the sponsored
changes sent to the Planning Commission. The zoning code for York County
remains "inclusive" and has served us well since the 1980's. The
"inclusive" aspect of our zoning code is very common in Virginia. I do not
know of a single county that uses only the "exclusive" approach, which I
believe is an extension of the state's Dillon Rule. This is something our
legislators can take on. I do not favor the Dillon Rule.
I've thought about the issue for years and have come to believe that there
is not a significant difference between the "inclusive" and "exclusive"
approach to zoning. Both approaches make for great political discussion but
do nothing to significantly improve property rights. Today, depending on
how you interpret the zoning code, we have some mix of the two approaches.
Agriculture is prime example. In the end, both approaches arrive at the
same point, which essentially is a restrictions on land use. I think that
if we were to move to an "exclusive" approach, the cost and size of
government might increase, which is also something I do not favor, and we
will see more grandfathering of land use. I'll be very glad to discuss
this with you after the holidays.
Regards,
Tom Shepperd
District 5 Representative
York County Board of Supervisors
Home (757) 868-8591
Mobile (757) 604-3079
From: Terry & Lynda Fairman [mailto:tfairman@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 12:32 PM
To: 'Thomas Shepperd'
Cc: Ggdirect@aol.com; 'Brenda P.'; mike@watsonfordelegate.com;
jrhgch@verizon.net; 'Tom Norment'
Subject: RE: the China zoning provision: l hope we have just begun to fight
in Yorktown!!
Importance: High
Tom - is this correct? I thought the only items that passed were related to
expanding authorization of chickens on private property not reducing private
property rights.
I thought this was one of the items tabled until the March 20 review after
the General Assembly session. I mentioned this topic in particular in my 3
minute speech at the public hearing and that it needed to be voted down.
Quite honestly, tabling the BOS control over citizens' use of aquaculture
and agriculture on their private property based on whether the 2012 General
Assembly addresses it seems a bit like extortion to me - leaving it hanging
over our heads like the proverbial Sword of Damocles, in essence,
threatening the citizens over what the General Assembly does. The YC BOS
wants to prohibit the state from controlling something by threatening its
own local citizens with extensive restrictions and oppressive regulation.
How is that being of service to the citizens who hired you as their
representatives?
If the information below is correct, this is one of the most egregious items
ever passed to control citizens and their property rights and needs to be
repealed immediately! This is far beyond what any HOA regulates, which you
voiced your opinion against at the Public Forum before the vote. How does YC
plan to enforce this - a backyard police force? Where will the funding come
for those inspectors...or will it rely on snooping neighbors? How does York
County plan to inform citizens they can't do anything you don't first
authorize on their personal property? Since when have the citizens elected
their Supervisors into a parental oversight role? How do you think the
citizens will react when this hits the media, if true? I have a strong
feeling the concerned citizen turn-out of 150+ with 80+ signed up to speak
Wednesday evening that ran from 5:00 pm to 1:00 am will be seen as small
compared to the turn-out over this item, if it is now part of the official
YC Zoning Ordinance.
I look forward to hearing from you about this and hope this portion of the
zoning ordinance was not passed.
Thanks so much for your quick response,
Lynda
Lynda Fairman
Yorktown
From: Ggdirect@aol.com [mailto:Ggdirect@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 10:13 AM
To: ggdirect@aol.com
Subject: the China zoning provision: l hope we have just begun to fight in
Yorktown!!
Dear Believers in Freedom,
Our battle on the Zoning Ordinance in York County is NOT over.
Last Wednesday night was very complicated and convoluted... Brenda Pogge
counted 49 changes being proposed. Plus the BoS did not kill the new
restrictions... they tabled them....
But l just got confirmation that the most far reaching, anti-property
rights, anti-freedom provision in the history of York County was passed
under the cloud of confusion and semi-euphoria based on our little partial
victory.
Look what passed?
The China zoning provision:
In the event a particular use is not listed in this chapter as a permitted
use, a specially permitted use, or an administratively permitted use, and
such use is not listed in section 24.1-307 as a prohibited use and is not
prohibited by law, then such use shall not be permitted unless the zoning
administrator shall determine whether a materially similar use exists in
this chapter.
It is very clear....
If you want to do something on your property, that is not currently written
in the Zoning Ordinance, & the Zoning Administrator(Zoning Czar) does not
find a similar use in the Zoning Ordinance, then YOU CANNOT DO IT !!!
How else can this be interpreted?
GG
For those of you not living in York County, can you see if you have a
similarly worded "China" provision in your Zoning Code?
Greg Garrett
www.greggarrettrealty.com <http://www.greggarrettrealty.com/>
offices in Hpt Rds from Chesapeake to Williamsburg
cell # 757-879-1504
Please let me know who needs to buy or sell a house
Help Orphans NOW! <http://www.orphanhelpers.org/> (click here)
No comments:
Post a Comment