THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, June 17, 1996 TAG: 9606170206
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY KATRICE FRANKLIN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: 160 lines
It starts with a simple acquisition of farmland - sometimes three or four acres, other times much larger parcels.
Then, under a zoning provision known as a family transfer, the land is divided and given to or sold to family members.
Family transfers were created by the state to preserve family farm compounds and agricultural land. But in Suffolk, the only Virginia city that allows such transfers, some developers and contractors have bought land and transferred it to family members with the intent to sell.
Once transferred and sold, some of the property has been transformed into small subdivisions - no more than four homes.
In some instances, folks driving on a street can't even tell the compounds exist. But drive down a dirt, sand or gravel pathway, and there are the houses.
Zoning requirements for the small subdivisons are not strict, so access by fire, police and rescue units can be difficult.
City officials say subdivisions created through family transfers don't get the same municipal services that other subdivisions do. And their developers aren't responsible for such things as maintaining the roads on which the homes are located, requirements they would have to finance if they submitted a request for a regular subdivision.
An example of a subdivision legally created through family transfers is on Turlington Road.
Court records show what happened with the property, where contractor Robert P. Weeks Sr. and his family used family transfers to develop five acres:
His wife, Shirley A. Weeks, purchased the property for $30,000.
She transferred about one acre to her son, Jason D. Weeks; half an acre to her husband; a little more than half an acre to son Robert P. Weeks Jr.; and kept close to two acres for herself.
Shortly afterward, all four pieces of property were sold - one for $105,000, two for close to $87,000 each and another for about $111,000. Four homes sit on the site.
By creating a subdivision by family transfers, developers aren't responsible for maintaining streets on which the homes are built.
From Turlington Road, a passer-by would not know the homes exist. They are surrounded by trees, and the only hints of nearby habitation are four mailboxes on the other side of the road and a small, narrow, gravel pathway leading to the four homes.
For his part, Robert Weeks Sr. points out that the transfers were done with city approval.
``I submitted my family transfer plats from the city of Suffolk,'' he said. ``They approved them. They signed off on them. If I've done anything wrong, they are to blame for it. If I've done anything illegal, the city is a part of it.''
It's the creation of such subdivisions that has motivated city officials to look for ways to strengthen Suffolk's family transfer ordinance.
Tuesday at 2 p.m., in City Council chambers, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a revised ordinance. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed changes Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Council chambers.
``The current ordinance permits development . . . that would otherwise not occur until public services are extended,'' Planning Director Paul E. Fisher said. ``People move to a rural setting for all the right reasons: open space, clean air. But when they arrive, they want city services, and parcels developed by farm transfers won't have city services.
``The expectations cannot be met that would normally be met in a more traditional subdivision.''
The city's current ordinance allows farmers to give property to either a spouse, child or parent for the purpose of protecting the land from development.
Its intent is to allow a farmer to transfer only one piece of property to the same family member, Fisher said.
But city officials say the current ordinance is too vague to enforce its intent.
``In the past, it has been interpreted where people could do multiple family transfers to the same family members in different parts of the city. . conveying to family members directly that they were transferring (land to them). They were marketing it for sale without ever giving it to the recipient and before the family transfer had taken place.
``When the same names came up frequently, it indicated that there was some abuse.''
Fisher said Weeks family members have applied for several family transfers. They have been approved for at least four in the last two years, records show. More than 60 deeds for acquisition and sale of property by them in the past two years are recorded in the Suffolk clerk's office.
Mayor S. Chris Jones said the ordinance has allowed some people to escape paying for the city's subdivision ordinance requirements.
``They are acting as developers without having to do required improvements to the road . . . street lighting and the whole nine yards,'' Jones said. ``I support a family member's right to sell or donate property to another family member.
``But once it becomes a profit-making thing to get around the subdivision ordinance, then the lines have to be drawn,'' he said.
City officials propose an ordinance that leaves little room for interpretation and makes it more difficult for developers to create subdivisions.
Not everyone favors the revisions.
``I have concerns about it,'' said Jesse J. Johnson, Jr., a Suffolk lawyer who sometimes handles family transfer and other land use issues. ``The ordinance is an unreasonable restriction on the . . . property. One of four basic rights. If we own property, we have the right to reasonably dispose of it.''
Johnson also said that he is concerned about the effect that the ordinance would have on a mortgage loan.
``If property can't be sold for 10 years. . . that might make lenders think twice about lending money to people,'' he said.
Suffolk builder and resident Linwood B. Callis said if city officials don't want Suffolk to become a carbon copy of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, they'll make way for small subdivisions in rural areas.
``If a farmer wants to split up land in reasonable-size lots and develop it so he can maximize the worth of his land . . . it would be too expensive for him to develop it into a major subdivision, and the land would be pushed into high density, which is exactly what the city doesn't want,'' Callis said.
Callis said the proposed ordinance allows city officials to dip too much into the personal lives of its citizens.
``To me, for a city to tell residents that the city can tie up their land for 10 years, privately owned land, just goes behind the realm of what city government is all about,'' said Callis, whose family owns about 200 acres of agricultural land near Lake Prince.
``If you give a parcel away to family members under the changes, it'll come with excess baggage,'' he said.
``Your child will be hamstrung with what he can do with his or her property, and their situation could change.
``It just seems odd that the city should be involved in listening to people's medical and financial difficulties and making decisions on how they can deal with these problems.'' MEMO: Staff writer Susie Stoughton contributed to this report. ILLUSTRATION: Photo
MIKE KESTNER/The Virginian-Pilot
A four-house subdivision off Turlington Road is a result of
Suffolk's family transfer ordinance. The houses are located in the
woods and barely visible from the road. By creating a subdivision
through family transfers, developers aren't responsible for
maintaining the streets on which the homes are built.
Graphics
PROPOSED CHANGES IN FAMILY TRANSFERS
1. Allow only one transfer per family member anywhere in the
city.
2. Require recipients of family transfers to keep the land for 10
years and allow the property to be sold earlier in cases of
hardship, such as foreclosure, bankruptcy, college tuition costs or
for medical expenses.
3. The Planning Commission and City Council would act on hardship
requests.
4. Require applicants and recipients to obtain deed, title and an
affidavit to ensure that receivers know they are getting land and
understand that the property cannot be sold for 10 years.
5. Require applicants to install gravel entrances to property
instead of dirt or sand.
6. Increase entrance widths from 10 to 20 feet to 50 feet to
accommodate rescue services.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Tuesday, 2 p.m.: Planning Commission, public hearing, City
Council chambers, City Hall, 441 Market St.
Wednesday, 7 p.m.: City Council, public hearing, City Council
chambers by CNB