THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 23, 1996 TAG: 9606210211
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Guest column
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: BY LINWOOD B. CALLIS
LENGTH: 66 lines
Proposed changes to the family-transfer provisions of Suffolk's zoning ordinances represent city government and city officials at their absolute worst.
This assertion is made for three reasons:
1) The principal change would be to restrict recipients from selling the property for 10 years. Exceptions could be made by the City Council due to hardships: medical expenses, tuition, bankruptcy or eviction from or foreclosure on the owners' principal residence.
As this ordinance is now written, an adult child of a farmer could not receive a portion of the family farm and, five years later, sell it if he decided to move from the area. This would give the city unprecedented control over what people could or could not do with their property.
2) The ``fast track'' on which the proposed changes were placed (Planning Commission hearing June 18, and consideration by council on June 19) was tantamount to (a) no community input, (b) giving the community no time to reflect on the issue, and (c) telling the community that the city has little regard for what citizens think about the proposed restrictions on privately owned land.
If the ordinance needs changing, change it! But it should be done with substantial education of the public about the issues involved and with ample opportunities for people to communicate their feelings to the city.
Use of privately owned land is a hot-button issue, and the city is grossly remiss in not defusing this issue by providing comprehensive public information and time for public reflection and response.
3) City planners and the City Council failed to recognize a need and initiate action to meet it.
The very fact that family transfers are vigorously used is one expression of that need. Another is the difference between what citizens and the city say they want and what is actually happening relative to development of our land and the population density within these developments.
We say we don't want to ``look'' like Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, but restrictive ordinances governing development of other than minor subdivisions force higher density in order for developers to recoup investment and make a fair return.
This could be avoided by putting into place a subdivision ordinance that allowed development of land with large lots, (say an acre or larger), that could be serviced by wells and septic fields.
Strict septic requirements with adequate replacement area could meet other pertinent state and federal regulations. This approach would make development considerably less expensive, permitting profitable development at low density and avoiding, in the future, unnecessary burdens on city services, such as schools.
Nearly everyone I've spoken with says this is what they want. Where is the city leadership on this issue? Why are these issues not being addressed in a comprehensive way instead of on a piecemeal basis?
The proposed ordinance, which offends many people, would strip many property owners of their rights. Where is the effort on the part of the city to engage the community in a public dialogue and arrive at consensus on these issues?
I believe city officials and the City Council are in serious error in attempting to deal with a community need in such a precipitate and roughshod way. I hope others who share these feelings will express themselves in appropriate ways.
(Editor's note: The Planning Commission delayed the matter, and the council did not consider it. See story on page 4.) MEMO: Linwood B. Callis lives on West Riverview Drive in Suffolk. by CNB