|
|
|
| Sat, Nov. 07 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Stafford prevails over Crucible
Stafford County prevails over The Crucible in the Supreme Court of Virginia
Date published: 6/6/2009
BY JONAS BEALS The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that The Crucible does not have a vested right to build an anti-terrorism training facility on agriculturally zoned property off Mount Olive Road in Stafford County. The decision, released Thursday, overturned a Circuit Court ruling that would have allowed the facility to be built on 198 acres without a conditional-use permit. If The Crucible wants to use the property, officials must now go through a public hearing and approval process. "I don't think everyone recognized the significance of this case," Hartwood The case has been ongoing since 2004. The Crucible purchased the Mount Olive Road property to expand an existing operation off Jack Ellington Road in south- Meanwhile, the Stafford County Board of Supervisors amended the zoning laws to require a public hearing for schools in agricultural areas. According to the Supreme Court ruling, The Crucible was remiss in relying on the determination by the zoning administrator. It did not constitute "a significant governmental act" and therefore did not guarantee The Crucible had vested property rights, which would have made the project immune to changes in the zoning laws. "All over the state, developers and landowners call their zoning administrators and ask 'Can I do x or y?'" said attorney Sharon Pandak, who represented Stafford in the case. "That does not indicate any approval by the government itself. It is excellent that the Supreme Court has determined that's not enough." Essentially, the ruling states that a landowner or developer needs more formal approval from a government agency to guarantee vested property rights--an approved site plan or a proffered rezoning, for example.
Read more stories about Stafford Date published: 6/6/2009
Read the opinion directly.
(posted by
TPKeller
, June 12, 2009 4:46 pm)
You can learn much more from the source document:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1081743.pdf
Take my ball and go home
(posted by
MrDes529
, June 9, 2009 4:49 pm)
Another example of the current board changing their minds mid-stream. These guys need to be treated like the babies they are have be changed.
"Justice has been served,"???
(posted by
Daddy
, June 8, 2009 7:47 am)
err.... Stafford Wronged Crucible... that is not "Justice"..
if you think about the purpose of zoning to start with
(posted by
larryg
, June 7, 2009 6:47 am)
it's to let neighbors of a potential new activity understand
the potential impacts and have a say in the matter.
This use of land is just as intrusive as many other type of
activities that would be required to located in land zoned
industrial or with a lot more buffers.
the point could be argued - and should - at a hearing.
but this project essentially exploited a loophole where the
ordinance assumed that schools would not emit noise
impacts and that was wrong.
so..getting rid of the loophole was good.
I would say
(posted by
ChrisS
, June 6, 2009 7:48 am)
more like an organic fertilizer processing facility using manure. may the inbound shipments of smelly animal excrement begin.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
