Dufty Reads Riot Act to County Planning Commission

March 9, 2015

EDITOR’S NOTE: Exmore community activist Ken Dufty continues to hold Northampton County officials’ feet to the fire, as evidenced in his latest letter to the Planning Commission. Of particular and novel interest is the issue of whether an owner of a commercial “barn,” apparently built to hold events, fundraisers, and other public gatherings, could do so “by right” if the owner offered hay rides to party and wedding guests. Dufty does not mention any owner by name, leaving the Wave to speculate that developer Bill Parr’s barn is the object of attention.

CHAIRMAN DIXON LEATHERBURY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:

It is becoming crystal clear that both the ongoing revisions to the current Northampton County Zoning Ordinance and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan are being conducted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and are devoid of the required studies and other empirical data that must be relied upon to make the decisions that are now being proposed.

Last week at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, [County Planner] Peter Stith was asked by Supervisor [Granville] Hogg why the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan did not involve the citizenry at the beginning of the process, rather than the current plan to present a final product to residents and business owners once the Plan had been revised.

Mr. Stith answered that they did involve the citizenry in surveys and workshops about three years ago. I have attached a copy of the responses to those surveys which 188 people filled out. Overwhelmingly, the respondants to those surveys conducted by the county said that it was “very important” that the Comprehensive Plan protect groundwater recharge areas and concerns; protect floodplains; preserve Priority Conservation Areas; protect Historic Sites, ensure Septic Suitability; and also directed the drafters of the Comprehensive Plan update to factor in rate of growth (majority wanted 1-2% rate of growth), and said that it was very important to create a balance between jobs and housing.

We are curious if the Planning Commission ever received the reponses to the surveys and the notes from the community meetings. If you did not, it is incumbent upon you to access that information, factor it into your deliberations, and then offer credible and defendable evidentiary basis to support your version of the plan, which turns its back on the will of the people as captured in the survey responses.   As many of you know, in order for any decision of a county government to withstand a judicial challenge, it has to rise to a level to be fairly debatable.   Simply ignoring and not responding to a key piece of evidence, such as a community survey and input from public workshops, tips the scales of this review firmly into the arena of arbitrary and capricious behavior, recommendation, and final decision.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

Further, when deliberating changes to our current Comprehensive Plan that you may recommend to the Board of Supervisors, I am appalled at some of the statements that I have witnessed being made by members of the Commission. Specifically, when deciding what is, and what is not, covered under the umbrella of “agri tourism,” Commissioner [Kay] Downing tried to get the Commission to agree that if the owner of a commercial “barn,” which was apparently built to hold events, fundraisers, and other public gatherings, could do so “by right” if the owner offered hay rides to party and wedding guests. Thankfully, Chairman Leatherbury ruled that in order for a use to be considered “agri-tourism,” it had to be related to agriculture. Note that it is my understanding that this issue is still not settled, and it may still be up for debate. It was perfectly clear to this writer that the attempt by Commissioner Downing, which was spirited and almost delivered with glee (as if to say she had found a way around the code) was to benefit one private developer at the expense of the neighboring landowners who may be harmed by the increased commercial traffic in an otherwise pastoral setting. Frankly, this display was embarrassing.

Equally embarrassing is Vice Chairman [JacquelineChatmon’s repeated questions to the other members of the Commission that asks what the Board of Supervisors wants the Commission to do!  At one point Vice Chairman Chatmon actually said that it is not the Planning Commission’s role to tell the Board of Supervisors what to do. Thankfully, the rest of the Commissioners retorted that it most certainly IS the role of the Planning Commission to guide and advise the Board of Supervisors on land use matters.

Finally, the Northampton County Board of Supervisors, specifically Chairman [Rick] Hubbard, has indicated that the Planning Commission has been instructed to determine if the protections of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act are protective enough of the coastal resources that are critically important to clean-water tourism and the aquaculture industry. Somehow, this directive has been reinterpreted to become a charge to the Commission to determine IF the CBPA should be retained on the Seaside coastal reserves. That said, to make such an important decision that will affect the environmental and economic future of the Shore, reliance on empirical data, testimony, research, and relevant studies must be the core of your deliberations. Although there have been many offers by marine scientists and experts in this field to testify on this important issue, to date it appears as if the Commission has not availed itself of that opportunity.

There is no question that the actions of both the Northampton County Planning Commission and those of the majority of the Northampton County Board of Supervisors regarding both the proposed rezoning of our current ordinance and the proposed revisions to the 2009 Comprehensive Plan are violative of the Code of Virginia, duly decided decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court, and common public decency.

This process, as it is being conducted, is a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources, and should be terminated immediately. That is the only remedy at this point that can have any credibility, both with the majority of residents of Northampton County and the law.

KENNETH DUFTY

Share

Comments

Comments are closed.