THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 23, 1996 TAG: 9606210204
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 04 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: CITY REPORT
SOURCE: By KATRICE FRANKLIN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: 94 lines
More than 20 people went to last week's City Council meeting to protest proposed changes in the city's family transfer ordinance.
There was so much protest that the Planning Commission decided to ask for revisions on some changes and to vote on them in 60 days.
City officials see amending the ordinance as a necessity.
Family transfers, created to preserve family farm compounds and agricultural land, have become development tools in some instances.
The intent of the ordinance is to allow farmers to divide their farms and give or sell land to their family members. It is not meant for the land to then be sold.
But certain developers and contractors in Suffolk have been using family transfers as a way to make money. Once they buy farm land, divide it and transfer it to family members, they sell the land and turn it into small subdivisions.
City officials say these subdivisions aren't safe. The only access to them are narrow dirt, sand or gravel roads, so getting to the homes for emergency vehicles can be difficult. And the developers don't have to pay for the same services such as maintaining the roads.
City officials proposed several changes to family transfers.
They included allowing only one transfer per family member, requiring recipients of family transfers to keep the land for 10 years and allowing the property to be sold earlier in cases of hardship, such as foreclosure, bankruptcy, college tuition costs or for medical expenses. The Planning Commission and City Council would act on hardship requests.
Requiring applicants and recipients to obtain deed, title and an affidavit would ensure that receivers know they are getting land and understand that the property cannot be sold for 10 years. Requiring applicants to install gravel entrances to property instead of dirt or sand and increasing entrance widths from 10 to 20 feet to 50 feet to accommodate rescue services.
Some of the residents' concerns at the planning commission meeting are below:
Tuesday, June 18
2:00 p.m. - City Council chambers, Suffolk
Dan Rogers, who owns 79 acres of land, said he agrees that the ordinance needs to be strengthened, but disagreed with several of the changes.
``I primarily feel that the 10 years is unrealistic,'' Rogers told the Planning Commission.
He also felt that the city needed to be more understanding in its hardship requests.
``People have to move, their job changes,'' he said. ``I also think it would be wise to add to this ordinance minimum acreage - something like one or two. My recommendation would be that it be sent back to commission to make changes to keep it for three years instead of 10.''
Jesse J. Johnson Jr., a Suffolk lawyer, also disagreed with the 10-year land constraint, and forcing citizens to ask the city for help in cases of financial troubles.
``The 10-year holding period is tantamount to taking property away from somebody,'' Johnson said. ``And the language about your hardships. Gentlemen, put yourself in the position of somebody before council. Someone having to come up here and say I'm in trouble. Can you imagine the embarrassment . .
Benny Williams, a Chesapeake resident but owner of land in Suffolk, wasn't quite sure which side he was on.
``I'm not really in opposition,'' Williams said. ``The main thing I'm concerned about, I don't understand the 10-year part.''
Curtis L. Willis disagreed with the 50-foot right of way and the 10-year holding period.
``This 10 year thing . . . In 10 years, I probably won't be here,'' Willis said. ``I'm not coming up here and telling ya'll my financial position. I'm not rich and I'm not poor. I'm not begging for nothing. This 10-year thing is ridiculous. The city of Suffolk will control my farm.''
Sam L. Callis said the ordinance restricts residents' rights.
``It hamstrings people from doing what they want to do with their property,'' Callis said. ``. . . I don't think we need to meddle with this.''
Ted H. Williams protested to all the changes.
``I would like to know what does a 10-year limit have to do with access,'' Williams said. ``What does an affidavit have to do with access? We as property owners need a reasonable right to sell our property . . . I think the city needs to review this ordinance a little farther.''
Williams also complained about the pace of passing the ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday night, and the City Council was supposed to hold a hearing on Wednesday night, but it was cancelled.
``The time frame is very, very short,'' he said. ``I was out of the country for two weeks. . . . Give us a chance to look at it.''
Virginia Harlow was against the 10-year period.
``I was raised to believe that you didn't get rid of land because there wasn't more left,'' Harlow said. ``But 10 years in anyone's life is a long time. I would like to see improvements made and the 10 years be removed.'' ILLUSTRATION: Staff photo by JOHN H. SHEALLY II
Curtis L. Willis spoke at last week's City Council meeting to voice
his opposition to proposed changes in the city's family transfer
ordinance. by CNB