Topic 6: By-Right Subdivisions – Aug 7 Work Session
These are my notes, the notes of one citizen who attended. They are not minutes of the meeting. I post them here, because if you wait for the official minutes to come out, it will be October, and then if there were anything discussed that you wanted to take action about, it will be too late. If anyone was there and had a different take on what happened, just hit the Comments button and add your two cents.
County Planner, Kevin Henry, gave a very impressive presentation on By-Right subdivisions. He said there were 74 of them approved this year, and they were receiving an application about once every three days, partly because people are thinking they need to act now before the zoning ordinances are rewritten. He showed how doing things through this means often causes us to have a hodge-podge of lots of varying sizes, set up at varying times, and many times the drainfields for the septic systems don’t end up on the lots themselves. So people are buying lots that end up having septic fields on somebody else’s land. He said that by the way the code is written, they lose the identity of the “parent tract” and then the intent of the law to keep areas from being developed quickly, gets defeated. Also, the breaking up of land this way causes private right-of-ways instead of state roads, and then we end up with 510 private right-of-ways, which are hard to handle by emergency services. He was asking the Board to task the Planning Commission to take an action within the next 100 days to solve this problem.
In the discussion that followed, some Board members, specifically John Rust, said this needed to be handled in the context of the big, overall zoning ordinance rewrite, and others, specifically Tommy LaFrance, said we couldn’t risk waiting for that to happen, because it would be such a long and difficult road to get the overall big picture solved, that we would risk not getting anything done on this immediate problem. The resolution was that they voted to go ahead and task the Planning Commission to solve this immediately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
HASTE MAKES WASTE. IT APPEARS THE NEW PLANNER IS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO JUSTIFY HIS JOB. BEWARE OF ANYTHING THE CURRENT PALNNING COMMISSION ENDORSES. THE COUNTY HAS MANAGED TO MAKE IT THROUGH 200 YEARS WITHOUT EXCESSIVE NANNYISM FROM OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS....THIS IS NOT FAIRFAX COUNTY AND I HOPE IT NEVER WILL BE.
HASTE MAKES WASTE. IT APPEARS THE NEW PLANNER IS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO JUSTIFY HIS JOB. BEWARE OF ANYTHING THE CURRENT PALNNING COMMISSION ENDORSES. THE COUNTY HAS MANAGED TO MAKE IT THROUGH 200 YEARS WITHOUT EXCESSIVE NANNYISM FROM OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS....THIS IS NOT FAIRFAX COUNTY AND I HOPE IT NEVER WILL BE.
It is obvious that the person making comments on Saturday, August 11, under this Blog and several other Blogs are the same person. This appears to be the same person that has been putting letters in the PN&C regarding the Brenda Merica situation.
Probably, most Page County residents know who this is. Actually, one needs to feel sorry for HIM as this continued bitterness and resentment will eventually only self-destruct.
Okay, it isn't obvious to me who Anonymous letters are. The danger in too many different anonymous postings is that people tend to project and assume who it is that is posting. So maybe it would be better if you are posting anonymously to select a phony name for yourself so that all of your posts can at least be attributed to the same phony name.
On the other hand, would it be so terrible to sign your name?
Now that you've brought up Brenda Merica, that does look like a bad situation. Why exactly DID the party representatives kick her out like that? It gives the APPEARANCE that somebody wants to do something fishy with the elections, doesn't it? Probably not true, but it certainly gives that impression.
I have to say, I went over there to get the contact information so I could call all the candidates to get their information for the election web page, and I was told I had to sign a paper saying what I looked at in the office. I'm fairly sure that is not a state requirement and it may even be illegal to monitor citizens who are just looking at county documents. Who wants to know who looks at public documents, and why do they want to know it?
Not only that, it took 45 minutes to find the information. The CONTACT information!
So I think this is a topic worthy of Letters to the Editor and public discussion.
Alice
Alice, since you have had direct contact with the Registar's office, and have stated several questions related to your own personal experience there, we would appreciate you finding out the answers to these questions and reporting on your blog.
We certainly don't want to see anything happening fishy with the elections, therefore, the answers you obtain to your questions, may present a valuable service to the general public.
Thank you.
Post a Comment