Here's the Scorecard for the Comprehensive Plan Informational meetings to be held July 9 - 13 and the meeting tonight, July 3.
Tonight's meeting is a Board of Supervisors Work Session at the Luray Courthouse at 7 p.m. This is the culmination of the famous Retreat. The Retreat came about because at the May 15 public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, where more than 70 citizens came to object to the line "Develop ordinances that prohibit buildings and businesses in the 100 year flood plain", the Supervisors determined that they were "up to the task" of making the necessary changes to the plan themselves. They scheduled a Retreat at Skyland in order to do that.
When they got to the Retreat, they only spent an hour talking about the Comprehensive Plan. They concluded during that hour that all they had to do was change the word "prohibit" to "regulate". They also said that if there were any further changes the Supervisors would like to individually propose, they could do so privately, after the few citizens who were in the audience were no longer there.
At this July 3 meeting, we will find out what changes were actually to be made to the plan.
After this meeting, five district meetings will be held to explain the plan to the citizens. The meetings will be held at the following locations:
July 9 - Shenandoah Elementary School
July 10 - Page County High School
July 11 - Stanley Fire Hall
July 12 - Luray Elementary School
July 13 - Springfield Elementary School
The district meetings all start at 7 p.m.
Go to at least one of these meetings if you can. The questions to ask are:
1. According to Virginia code, a Comprehensive Plan contains a Land Use Map to guide zoning. Where can I see that Land Use Map? (The answer is: one wasn't developed yet)
2. The county is in the process of hiring a consultant to help with a rewrite of the zoning ordinance. Why is the zoning ordinance being rewritten? (The answer is: the Supervisors want to keep our county from becoming too crowded so they want to change the zoning so that people can't build outside of the towns areas, unless they can buy a lot of land)
3. I'm aware that our existing flood plain ordinance is in compliance with state and federal requirements. What is the intention of the Supervisors in refusing to vote changes down and put attempts to throw the people off their land to bed once and for all?
4. Will zoning changes impact me and my family?
And the big one . . .
5. Will these zoning changes increse or decrease our chances for a bigger real estate tax increase in the next two or three years?
Answers to these questions are important to the citizens of this county. Shouldn't you know what the Board of Supervisors intends to do and why?
To comment on this Post and Blog, hit the Comments button. All you have to do is type into the box that comes up, you don't have to do any special codes. Then you can select Other if you want to sign your name, or Anonymous if you don't. Anonymous posts really are anonymous. Nobody can tell where they came from.
Alice Richmond
Showing posts with label Drinking the Bath Water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drinking the Bath Water. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Incomprehensible Plan
Guest Blog by Steve Whisler
PCW has posted the editable versions of the revised amended Comprehensive Plan, Comp Plan 5-8 rough scan (intended for inclusion in the Comp Plan) and Virginia Code 15.2-2223 under Comprehensive Plan on the main site at http://www.PageCountyWatch.org The DVD of the Comprehensive Plan portion of the Supervisors Retreat will be made available as soon as possible, most likely in time for the individual District Supervisor meetings to be held.
The Incomprehensible Plan
The Board of Supervisors has now returned from its retreat after deliberating for an entire hour on a 100 page document, a revised amended comprehensive plan. I have read the document as well as the Virginia code that requires county governments to have a comprehensive plan. The Virginia code states that a comprehensive plan is to address the physical development of the territory, in this case Page County. It is essentially described as a mapping/planning exercise intended to identify and document current land use and infrastructure and what it will need to be to accommodate projected changes in land use requirements.
The revision to the amended comprehensive plan under consideration by the Board is quite a different bird. It is a hash of goals and objectives only a few of which have anything to do with planning the physical development of the county. For some unexplained reason, even after significant editing, there remain academic discourses on unrelated topics such as Karst topography, acid rain, air pollution, etc, as well as policy implication statements, statements to encourage or discourage this, promote that, to prohibit or regulate the other, most of which have nothing to do with planning land use
(i.e., educating kids about robotics and aerospace technology; educating citizens about environment and water quality; promoting tourism; obtaining funding, etc. It goes on and on.). Buried within the document are the elements of what a comprehensive plan is suppose to be according to Virginia code. However, even those elements fall short of completeness.
Virginia code also calls for performing careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of the county and inhabitants in the context of land use. There is no evidence those types of things were ever done. Interestingly, there are elements of the plan that call for performing surveys and studies that should have been done prior to the development of a comprehensive plan. Even stranger is the fact that in the little snippet called “Comp Plan 5-8 rough scan” under the heading Land Use, what is suppose to be a land use plan calls for the creation of a land use plan. What?
Further, a comprehensive plan under Virginia code is mandated to include “A zoning ordinance and zoning district maps.” Why is the comprehensive plan subcommittee just now beginning work on that issue? What exactly would the Board of Supervisors be approving under the amended plan? It would seem that the comprehensive plan committee may have a little malfeasance problem as well. After three years or so of fumbling around they have produced absolutely nothing of value for the Board of Supervisors to adopt.
To be sure, many of the elements that are irrelevant for inclusion in a comprehensive plan as contemplated by Virginia code should be considered in developing it. However, they should be addressed somewhere else, possibly as part of a broad county strategic plan. It is a mystery how what was supposed to be a comprehensive plan was corrupted into what it has become. It may well be that somewhere, way back when, there was a recognition there was a need to have a broad strategic vision for the county and it seemed like a good idea at the time to roll it into this thing called a comprehensive plan. Egad, now we have a precedent!
What really concerns me is the Board of Supervisors is in the mood to adopt a comprehensive plan regardless of how fouled up it is. Changing a word here and shifting a sentence there really does not answer the mail. I would be willing to wager if the title “Comprehensive Plan” was to be placed on a comic book, as is the case here, they would approve it. Over recent months, the Board has shown little overt interest in what the citizens of the county have to say. If they do come to their senses regarding the comprehensive plan, they will realize that attempting to put lipstick on a pig will not make it anything other than a pig.
Steve Whisler
Note: The Board will review their “changes” to the Comprehensive Plan in the work session of July 3. At the Retreat, they said they would then take this plan to the citizens in individual district meetings, Supervisor to Citizen.
PCW has posted the editable versions of the revised amended Comprehensive Plan, Comp Plan 5-8 rough scan (intended for inclusion in the Comp Plan) and Virginia Code 15.2-2223 under Comprehensive Plan on the main site at http://www.PageCountyWatch.org The DVD of the Comprehensive Plan portion of the Supervisors Retreat will be made available as soon as possible, most likely in time for the individual District Supervisor meetings to be held.
The Incomprehensible Plan
The Board of Supervisors has now returned from its retreat after deliberating for an entire hour on a 100 page document, a revised amended comprehensive plan. I have read the document as well as the Virginia code that requires county governments to have a comprehensive plan. The Virginia code states that a comprehensive plan is to address the physical development of the territory, in this case Page County. It is essentially described as a mapping/planning exercise intended to identify and document current land use and infrastructure and what it will need to be to accommodate projected changes in land use requirements.
The revision to the amended comprehensive plan under consideration by the Board is quite a different bird. It is a hash of goals and objectives only a few of which have anything to do with planning the physical development of the county. For some unexplained reason, even after significant editing, there remain academic discourses on unrelated topics such as Karst topography, acid rain, air pollution, etc, as well as policy implication statements, statements to encourage or discourage this, promote that, to prohibit or regulate the other, most of which have nothing to do with planning land use
(i.e., educating kids about robotics and aerospace technology; educating citizens about environment and water quality; promoting tourism; obtaining funding, etc. It goes on and on.). Buried within the document are the elements of what a comprehensive plan is suppose to be according to Virginia code. However, even those elements fall short of completeness.
Virginia code also calls for performing careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of the county and inhabitants in the context of land use. There is no evidence those types of things were ever done. Interestingly, there are elements of the plan that call for performing surveys and studies that should have been done prior to the development of a comprehensive plan. Even stranger is the fact that in the little snippet called “Comp Plan 5-8 rough scan” under the heading Land Use, what is suppose to be a land use plan calls for the creation of a land use plan. What?
Further, a comprehensive plan under Virginia code is mandated to include “A zoning ordinance and zoning district maps.” Why is the comprehensive plan subcommittee just now beginning work on that issue? What exactly would the Board of Supervisors be approving under the amended plan? It would seem that the comprehensive plan committee may have a little malfeasance problem as well. After three years or so of fumbling around they have produced absolutely nothing of value for the Board of Supervisors to adopt.
To be sure, many of the elements that are irrelevant for inclusion in a comprehensive plan as contemplated by Virginia code should be considered in developing it. However, they should be addressed somewhere else, possibly as part of a broad county strategic plan. It is a mystery how what was supposed to be a comprehensive plan was corrupted into what it has become. It may well be that somewhere, way back when, there was a recognition there was a need to have a broad strategic vision for the county and it seemed like a good idea at the time to roll it into this thing called a comprehensive plan. Egad, now we have a precedent!
What really concerns me is the Board of Supervisors is in the mood to adopt a comprehensive plan regardless of how fouled up it is. Changing a word here and shifting a sentence there really does not answer the mail. I would be willing to wager if the title “Comprehensive Plan” was to be placed on a comic book, as is the case here, they would approve it. Over recent months, the Board has shown little overt interest in what the citizens of the county have to say. If they do come to their senses regarding the comprehensive plan, they will realize that attempting to put lipstick on a pig will not make it anything other than a pig.
Steve Whisler
Note: The Board will review their “changes” to the Comprehensive Plan in the work session of July 3. At the Retreat, they said they would then take this plan to the citizens in individual district meetings, Supervisor to Citizen.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Holy Moly, now I get it!
Alert! Alert! WE can go to the Retreat! Page County Watch has learned that the Retreat is a public meeting! We are allowed to attend!
By George and By Jove . . . we WILL attend! In fact, we will attend with Bells on. And when you see our Bells, you will know what I mean.
So . . . mark your calendars. Page County Watch will post the date, the time, the location, and the directions to get there. And chances are . . . we will know before it's announced in the paper or posted on the website.
Current thinking: it's going to be mid-June, at Skyland, on a weekday, just one day from about 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
PLAN to be there!
By George and By Jove . . . we WILL attend! In fact, we will attend with Bells on. And when you see our Bells, you will know what I mean.
So . . . mark your calendars. Page County Watch will post the date, the time, the location, and the directions to get there. And chances are . . . we will know before it's announced in the paper or posted on the website.
Current thinking: it's going to be mid-June, at Skyland, on a weekday, just one day from about 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
PLAN to be there!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Ongoing Saga
I know you're all just dying to hear what happened at the Board of Supervisors meeting tonight.
We had a lot of people there. We had a great showing and a lot of really good speeches and serious citizen comments.
When we were done talking, the Supervisors decided to go on a Retreat, so they could consider what should be done with the Comprehensive Plan. And they didn't like the two options they had with the motion re: the Flood Plain Ordinance. The options were to accept the motion to end debate until there were definitive maps or to reject the motion and send it back to the Planning Commission. So they decided to consider that after they decided what to do about the Comprehensive Plan on their retreat.
I kid you not.
That's what happened.
Push the Comments button and VENT.
We had a lot of people there. We had a great showing and a lot of really good speeches and serious citizen comments.
When we were done talking, the Supervisors decided to go on a Retreat, so they could consider what should be done with the Comprehensive Plan. And they didn't like the two options they had with the motion re: the Flood Plain Ordinance. The options were to accept the motion to end debate until there were definitive maps or to reject the motion and send it back to the Planning Commission. So they decided to consider that after they decided what to do about the Comprehensive Plan on their retreat.
I kid you not.
That's what happened.
Push the Comments button and VENT.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Mike Trader's response to Natalie
This is in response to Natalie Zuckerman’s, request in last week’s paper, to “Don’t throw away proposed flood plain amendments.” I agree! They should not be thrown away. Instead they should be buried in the deepest hole in Page County and cemented over, never to see the light of day again!
Yes, we are a vocal group. We are also diverse, intelligent, of all incomes (from top to bottom) and of various skills: carpenters, lawyers, doctors, physicists, mechanics, small business owners, retirees and even a rocket scientist, (sorry, no developers). We are determined, but most of all, right! When a lifetime investment in your house, cabin or trailer, and water-front property are threatened, we cannot and will not be silent or still! Yes we are land owners but we are also other citizens who are just aghast at this draconian flood plain proposal. We stand by all the statements made in the full page ad. They are all verifiable facts! And, yes we were lied to. This whole thing definitely did not start as a result of an unsolicited letter from the state telling us our current Flood Plain Ordinance was not in compliance, and by the way, the current flood plain law is absolutely in compliance with state and federal guidelines and regulations...period!
Let’s see, you say six structures built along Route 340 Business and three more planned is a problem? I don’t think so. Instead, they represent thousands of dollars in tax revenue to our cash-strapped county; remember the two new high schools?
You say, “... the proposed ordinance... attempts to stop “various” development activities.” Wrong, it stops ALL development as well as repairs, remodeling, putting on decks, fixing driveways, declares mandatory abandonment of a house if damaged 50% by any means, and on and on and on.
If you tried to build a house on your land that was supposedly covered by 20 feet of water in 1996 and 2003 (there was no serious flood in 2003!?) you would not, as you claim in your letter, be able to build at ground level. Under the current law you would have to elevate it to one foot above high flood level.
You mention several times, “community’s welfare”. No one has ever been killed by anything remotely related to all the no-no’s in the proposed new flood plain law and our fine sheriff’s office has never pulled anyone out of a flood. You also say, “The proposed ordinance outlines appropriate by-right activities in flood plains.” It is clear that the only “by-right activities” allowed are building a bonfire or sitting in a fold up chair to watch the river or creek go by, or putting up a tent etc., because nothing, no building or house or shed, no -- nothing can be on any flood plain in Page County under this proposal and those houses etc., that are already there will eventually have to be abandoned .
Natalie, it is clear that this plan that you and a few others have authored has only one objective, to eventually eliminate everything on our flood plains that doesn’t grow in nature...whatever the cost to Page County and whatever the distress and financial loss to flood plain owners. All the other things you say about: safety, welfare, increasing flood damage in the US, it’s broke, false statements, people induce additional flooding, etc., etc., are just baloney and smoke and mirrors for the real intent. I say, “Bury it!”
Mike Trader
Yes, we are a vocal group. We are also diverse, intelligent, of all incomes (from top to bottom) and of various skills: carpenters, lawyers, doctors, physicists, mechanics, small business owners, retirees and even a rocket scientist, (sorry, no developers). We are determined, but most of all, right! When a lifetime investment in your house, cabin or trailer, and water-front property are threatened, we cannot and will not be silent or still! Yes we are land owners but we are also other citizens who are just aghast at this draconian flood plain proposal. We stand by all the statements made in the full page ad. They are all verifiable facts! And, yes we were lied to. This whole thing definitely did not start as a result of an unsolicited letter from the state telling us our current Flood Plain Ordinance was not in compliance, and by the way, the current flood plain law is absolutely in compliance with state and federal guidelines and regulations...period!
Let’s see, you say six structures built along Route 340 Business and three more planned is a problem? I don’t think so. Instead, they represent thousands of dollars in tax revenue to our cash-strapped county; remember the two new high schools?
You say, “... the proposed ordinance... attempts to stop “various” development activities.” Wrong, it stops ALL development as well as repairs, remodeling, putting on decks, fixing driveways, declares mandatory abandonment of a house if damaged 50% by any means, and on and on and on.
If you tried to build a house on your land that was supposedly covered by 20 feet of water in 1996 and 2003 (there was no serious flood in 2003!?) you would not, as you claim in your letter, be able to build at ground level. Under the current law you would have to elevate it to one foot above high flood level.
You mention several times, “community’s welfare”. No one has ever been killed by anything remotely related to all the no-no’s in the proposed new flood plain law and our fine sheriff’s office has never pulled anyone out of a flood. You also say, “The proposed ordinance outlines appropriate by-right activities in flood plains.” It is clear that the only “by-right activities” allowed are building a bonfire or sitting in a fold up chair to watch the river or creek go by, or putting up a tent etc., because nothing, no building or house or shed, no -- nothing can be on any flood plain in Page County under this proposal and those houses etc., that are already there will eventually have to be abandoned .
Natalie, it is clear that this plan that you and a few others have authored has only one objective, to eventually eliminate everything on our flood plains that doesn’t grow in nature...whatever the cost to Page County and whatever the distress and financial loss to flood plain owners. All the other things you say about: safety, welfare, increasing flood damage in the US, it’s broke, false statements, people induce additional flooding, etc., etc., are just baloney and smoke and mirrors for the real intent. I say, “Bury it!”
Mike Trader
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Comprehensive Plan meeting
Don't forget! The meeting to get the line "pass ordinances that prohibit houses and businesses in the 100 year flood plain" out of the Comprehensive Plan is May 15 in Stanley.
Response to Natalie
In the May 3rd issue of the Page News, Natalie Zuckerman wrote a letter to the editor about the flood plain ordinance. This is my response to Ms.
Zuckerman.
1. Page County Watch is a group of 45 citizens who have houses in the flood plain. We are not developers. Instead, we are ordinary people, driven to extraordinary action when we were hit with the realization in December of 2006 that Ms. Zuckerman nearly managed to get a law passed that would take away our homes.
2. Ms. Zuckerman, on her own home computer, wrote the draft flood plain ordinance and presented it to the zoning subcommittee of the Planning Commission, according to our research of the minutes of meetings over the last three years. The minutes verify that the commission members and the Board of Supervisors were told that there was a letter from the state saying our current ordinance was not in compliance. This is not true. Our current ordinance is in compliance. In Natalie's new ordinance, it says that we, citizens of Page County, will have to abandon our homes if they are damaged by any reason -- fire, vandalism, trees falling, termites, whatever. Why? So that the 100 year flood plain can be pure and pristine and only animals and birds can live there. It also says we have to register ourselves as "nonconforming" and APPLY for new occupancy certificates, in our own homes. The flood plain can
only be used to pitch tents and have circuses, in Ms. Zuckerman's plan.
3. There is a current flood plain ordinance. The current plan requires any new building in the flood plain to meet FEMA requirements for floodproofing, meaning it has to be elevated 1 foot above the 100 year mark. That's fine with us. However, it is apparently not good enough for Ms. Zuckerman, as she refers to her own 7 acres (most of us have 1/2 acre) as being "selfish" if she were to build there, since her land is apparently under 15 feet of water. The
current ordinance would not let her build there unless she elevated it above the 100 year watermark. The land we all live on only gets flooded once in a hundred years. That's what makes it a 100 year flood.
4. Ms. Zuckerman calls for reasonable people to meet on common ground. If she had approached us, the people who live in the flood plain, before she tried to get a law passed to throw us out of our houses, and she had named some reasons why she had something specific she wanted done, she surely would have found some reasonable people to talk with about her issues. Having attacked us by attempting to take our houses, however, has made us feel
disinclined to be reasonable.
At least, I am disinclined to be reasonable toward Ms. Zuckerman.
When there is a water quality issue with the river, and the chicken farmers, the industries in Waynesboro, and Merck want to sit down and talk about it . . . I'll be there.
Until then . . . Natalie, go find something else to do.
If any other readers of Page County Watch would like to post a response to Natalie, hit the Comments button. Or, if you would like your own Blog, email me
your letter and I'll post it as a main Blog.
Alice Richmond
Zuckerman.
1. Page County Watch is a group of 45 citizens who have houses in the flood plain. We are not developers. Instead, we are ordinary people, driven to extraordinary action when we were hit with the realization in December of 2006 that Ms. Zuckerman nearly managed to get a law passed that would take away our homes.
2. Ms. Zuckerman, on her own home computer, wrote the draft flood plain ordinance and presented it to the zoning subcommittee of the Planning Commission, according to our research of the minutes of meetings over the last three years. The minutes verify that the commission members and the Board of Supervisors were told that there was a letter from the state saying our current ordinance was not in compliance. This is not true. Our current ordinance is in compliance. In Natalie's new ordinance, it says that we, citizens of Page County, will have to abandon our homes if they are damaged by any reason -- fire, vandalism, trees falling, termites, whatever. Why? So that the 100 year flood plain can be pure and pristine and only animals and birds can live there. It also says we have to register ourselves as "nonconforming" and APPLY for new occupancy certificates, in our own homes. The flood plain can
only be used to pitch tents and have circuses, in Ms. Zuckerman's plan.
3. There is a current flood plain ordinance. The current plan requires any new building in the flood plain to meet FEMA requirements for floodproofing, meaning it has to be elevated 1 foot above the 100 year mark. That's fine with us. However, it is apparently not good enough for Ms. Zuckerman, as she refers to her own 7 acres (most of us have 1/2 acre) as being "selfish" if she were to build there, since her land is apparently under 15 feet of water. The
current ordinance would not let her build there unless she elevated it above the 100 year watermark. The land we all live on only gets flooded once in a hundred years. That's what makes it a 100 year flood.
4. Ms. Zuckerman calls for reasonable people to meet on common ground. If she had approached us, the people who live in the flood plain, before she tried to get a law passed to throw us out of our houses, and she had named some reasons why she had something specific she wanted done, she surely would have found some reasonable people to talk with about her issues. Having attacked us by attempting to take our houses, however, has made us feel
disinclined to be reasonable.
At least, I am disinclined to be reasonable toward Ms. Zuckerman.
When there is a water quality issue with the river, and the chicken farmers, the industries in Waynesboro, and Merck want to sit down and talk about it . . . I'll be there.
Until then . . . Natalie, go find something else to do.
If any other readers of Page County Watch would like to post a response to Natalie, hit the Comments button. Or, if you would like your own Blog, email me
your letter and I'll post it as a main Blog.
Alice Richmond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
