|
|
|
| Mon, Nov. 30 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Orange restricts subdivisions
Orange approves restrictive subdivision ordinance, despite objections from residentsDate published: 10/30/2008 BY ROBIN KNEPPER Nearly 25 percent of the 375 people who attended the public hearing on Orange County's amended subdivision ordinance had something to say about it. For three hours, about 90 percent of those speakers asked, begged and pleaded with county supervisors to vote against the ordinance. To no avail. Just as they had previously announced, Supervisors Teri Pace, Zack Burkett and Lee Frame voted for the ordinance that would restrict property division to once in four years, would leave lots under 50 acres indivisible and require roads to be built to state specifications if they serve at least three lots. Board Chairman Mark Johnson and Supervisor Teel Goodwin voted in the minority. "What we have here is bad because it's unjust," Johnson said. "We're taking away the rights of the people and giving them to the government." Proponents of the change have said it will slow residential growth and the corresponding cost of providing schools, police, fire and other government services to new residents. "The economy will pick up and we need to be smart for future generations," Pace said. But Johnson said the county would have to add more staff to enforce the more restrictive ordinance. And landowners opposed to the change said they need the option of selling their land for income, education, medical emergencies, retirement and their desire to pass on land to their children. Locust Grove resident William Hedger Sr. spoke about his need to sell land to stay off public assistance. "Land is all we have," he said. "Please allow us to keep our dignity by keeping our land." Many speakers said they intend to keep their land but protested the county's infringement of their property rights. Richardsville resident Kurt Chrisiansen called the ordinance "snob zoning." "This is being done for the idle rich, the trust-fund gentlemen farmers and the gravy-train environmental groups," he said. "They want rural cleansing." Attorneys Paul Gauthier and Roderic Slayton said legal challenges to the law are likely. Dan Holmes, a field director for the Piedmont Environmental Council, which backed the ordinance, said it was "not overly restrictive." PEC Vice Chairman Jack Snyder said that "a lot of people don't understand the ordinance" and that "property rights are not being threatened." Barboursville resident Steve Yelton opposed the ordinance but was grateful for the group. "I thank the PEC for sending out postcards about this hearing to everyone in the county or I wouldn't have been here."
Robin Knepper: 540/972-5701
Read more stories about Orange Date published: 10/30/2008
This will be repealed
(posted by
wideopenspace
, Oct. 30, 2008 6:02 pm)
It is too broad per this article. What if a family wants to divide for a son or daughter? Unless the original property is 50 acres or more, they can't? Lawsuits will get this repealed in a few months or less. Very few owners have more than 50 acres of land in Orange and the one's who do have 50 acres or more, have a farm on it and wouldn't subdivide anyway.
Legal Challenge
(posted by
DeanFetterolf
, Oct. 30, 2008 4:41 pm)
This oridnance amounts to a taking of land by unreasonably restricting by rights owners from subdividing their property. The county cannot mandate roads to state specifications on private land. They do not have that authority or the money to maintain them.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
