Visit the Photo Place

View the Spotsylvania County community page

Spotsylvania may delay vote

Spotsylvania prepares for discussion over boundary of county's primary growth zone

By GEORGE WHITEHURST

Date published: 8/9/2004

By GEORGE WHITEHURST Boards set to debate denying utilities to Mullins farm

The Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors may not vote tomorrow night on whether to curb development along a portion of State Route 3.

The board will hold a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to discuss whether to remove a chunk of land along Route 3 from the county's designated growth area, which it calls the Primary Settlement District. The owners of the affected properties would not be allowed to hook up to county water and sewer.

The properties would be put in the county's Rural Development District, which calls for sparser growth.

The land between Spotswood Furnace Road and Route 3--which includes the Mullins farm--was moved from the rural district to the growth area in 2002 when supervisors amended zoning laws in hopes of better managing residential development.

The properties in question lie near the Chancellorsville battlefield, a holy grail for historical preservationists.

Board Chairman Bob Hagan, who initially favored a quick resolution of the matter, said late last week that he now wants the two bodies to vote separately on the issue.

"There seemed little point in dragging out, over the course of two separate meetings, either a public hearing or a decision," Hagan said. "However, I agree with those who feel that having both boards vote on this on the same night gives it a rushed-through appearance.

"Accordingly, I think that the board and the Planning Commission should give consideration to voting on this issue separately, in separately held meetings, even if we do hold the public hearing jointly."

Vice Chairman Hap Connors agreed, calling for plenty of public input.

Their change of heart seemed to rankle Supervisor Gary Jackson, who voted against holding the joint hearing.

"I said earlier that I didn't understand what the rush was," Jackson said. "Obviously, there was a rush because we scheduled this unusual joint public hearing. Now, I'm hearing that there's enough of a rush to have this unusual joint public hearing but not enough of a rush to vote on it at a joint meeting."

Follow us on

Date published: 8/9/2004