LeMond, Dufty Trade Shots on County Zoning

August 4, 2014

EDITOR’S NOTE: Last week the Wave published a commentary by Ken Dufty on “Northampton Zoning’s ‘Man Behind the Curtain.'” (CLICK to read.) Northampton County Board of Supervisors Chairman Larry LeMond reacted to Dufty’s commentary at a Board meeting July 28. In turn, Mr. Dufty has asked the Wave to publish his reply to Mr. LeMond’s reply. Both gentlemen’s statements appear below. 

JULY 28 STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN LEMOND

There is no “man behind the curtain” in regard to the proposed zoning code. The Code draft is per the direction of the Board of Supervisors and was drafted by a team of seven employees from Administration, Legal, Planning and Zoning. Mr. McSwain was hired at the direction of the Board to provide several functions as Director of Development, including among them streamlining the planning and permitting process and addressing economic development.

The author of these letters suggested that PEMSCO would be allowed under the draft zoning code. In fact, such a use is not permitted in any district. Perhaps the confusion is that the use of burning soil to remove petroleum is not a biomass conversion of any type. In fact biomass conversion, which is only permitted on a small scale in all districts because it is required by Virginia Code, is the process of taking renewable resources, such as wood, and creating some type of energy. So a wood fireplace is a small scale biomass converter. As to the statement regarding the Exmore biodiesel project, the County has no influence over Exmore zoning. Regardless, any industrial operation, if permitted for a land use, must also meet all performance standards regarding offensive activity, U.S. EPA and VDEQ rules.

As to the draft code allowing a prison, the statements made are incorrect. Prison use is allowed in an agricultural district and then only with a special use permit which requires a public hearing. It is allowed by right in industrial, but the largest industrial site in the county is far too small to accommodate a prison, and thus a rezoning would be required with a public hearing to create a prison. The prison use was included to address the topic in the zoning code, not to enable one without a public hearing.

Further, Mr. McSwain on occasion works outside the community to support the economic development profession. He recently served as a judge for the International Economic Development Council 2014 Awards. He has not accepted any new outside compensation engagements since being employed by Northampton County.

KEN DUFTY RESPONDS

At the conclusion of the July 28, 2014, Northampton County Board of Supervisors work session, Chairman LeMond read into the official record a rather lively rebuttal to my “Who is the Man Behind the Curtain” letter that was printed in this newspaper last week. While I try to space the timing of my letters on the proposed zoning revisions, I greatly appreciate this rare chance to respond in a timeframe that this issue demands.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

First, Chairman LeMond said I was wrong that a company like PEMSCO, which wanted to bring oil-contaminated soil to the Cheriton area, incinerate it, and then sell the reclaimed soil to users on the Eastern Shore, would be allowed to do that by right. Yet on page 24 of the Proposed Zoning Code public document, it allows uses called “waste related” by right in Commercial and Industrial zones (Cheriton) and with a special use permit in agricultural zones. The term “waste related” is extremely overly broad, and can easily encompass a use such as reclaiming contaminated soil. The words have no place in any zoning code, and Chairman LeMond should be stumping for their removal.

Next he alludes that “Biomass Conversion to Alternative Fuel” is proposed to be allowed by right in any zoning district because Virginia Code demands that a county allow it and not require a special use permit. Wrong again. After McSwain first said this at the March 11 public hearing, I called Troy Breathwaite from Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to confirm. He emphatically said that the state in no way, shape, or form requires a county to permit this bio-conversion to alternative fuel in ANY zoning district. The law says that if a county DOES allow it in a zoning district, they cannot require a special use permit, but they can regulate it through performance standards. He said the state has actually denied permits to Biomass facilities because they were proposed for areas that were not zoned for these types of invasive facilities.

I can provide Mr. Breathwaite’s number if Mr. LeMond wants to have a chat.

Third, I must admit that Mr. LeMond was correct when he said that the proposed zoning regs would allow prisons in agricultural districts, but they would require a special use permit. I shamelessly wrote that a proposal to build a State Maxi Prison would be allowed “by right” in agricultural districts in the hopes that my statement would elicit the exact response it received Monday night. I needed to have someone other than me let your readers know that the county is going to allow prisons where soy, wheat, corn, and potatoes grow, even after the Eastern Shore citizens fought hard and long to turn one away 20 years ago. If a prison is to be allowed on the Shore, it should only be allowed in an industrial district, but I still agree with the masses that it should not be allowed at all!

I appreciate the opportunity to help enlighten Chairman LeMond on the facts surrounding the zoning ordinance that his staff and economic development director have crafted.