Has the Board of Supervisors Forsaken the Little Guy?

This week, a District 1 citizen forwarded this letter to the Mirror (which is part of the public record). In an email, they voiced continued concern about commercial expansion on the southern end of Route 13 (we believe they refer to the new Royal Farms); they question whether the current Board of Supervisors is acting consistently. The point they brought up was that while some members voiced policy positions that at one time appeared to align with the consensus of folks on the southern end, now that they are in office, not so much. With opposition from local residents concerned about what many consider unwarranted commercial development, as well as potential traffic safety issues, the concern is that the Board has turned a deaf ear on the “little guy” in favor of a “development at all costs” policy which will generally provide most of the benefit to a large corporation at the expense of the local community.

An example of the perceived inconsistency is seen below:

Group 3 Issues

-Proponents of the amendment changes believe that less restrictive zoning will bring residential and commercial revenues to the County. While I agree that some expansion of commercial on the FLUM is warranted, I am concerned about the elimination of the overlay US 13 Corridor District. While I am sensitive to potential accusations of “spot zoning” in the future, I cannot agree with miles of commercial up zoning in the hope that development will occur. Additional commercial revenue will help ease the burden of property taxes and sensible development on Rt 13 is necessary. By-right designations in the commercial district and zoning huge portions of Rt. 13 commercial will relinquish control of where access roads and stop lights are placed. The ZO should proceed very carefully here.

As well as:

Group 4 Issues

– Like many members of this group, my main concern is the process through which adjacent property owners have a voice when threats to their property values or their right to enjoyment of it surface. Even though many SUPs seem unnecessary and are approved without opposition, there are also instances where the process represents the best of democratic governance where the “little guy” gets a voice. In my view that must not be sacrificed in the pursuit of expediency.

Read full letter which was submitted to the BoS November 2014.

To: Northampton County Supervisors

From: H. Spencer Murray

Date: November 20, 2014

Subject: Proposed Zoning Amendment Chapter 154.1, 158 and 159

Honorable Supervisors:

Since my comments to you on May 13th when I cautioned about going too far in zoning revisions I have read the proposed amendments several times and can comment on some specific changes that in my view should be reviewed. As you know, I never tell anyone how to vote as I assume you are much closer to all sides of the issues. If my experience helps in your analysis, I am happy to offer it. It is in that spirit that I put forward the following thoughts:

After attending some of the open sessions where most of the comments were in opposition to the changes, I have found it helpful to categorize opinion into four groups. The groups do share some characteristics across other groups however their strongest concerns define them.

After defining the groups I aligned the specific area of change that they oppose and added my own thoughts based on my knowledge of the 2009 ZO and the proposed amendments. I hope you find them useful as you contemplate the final version of the new ordinance.

Group 1. This group of passionate and vocal citizens participated in the development of the Comprehensive Plan in the 1990s and through adoption in 2005. Driven largely by the fear (founded or unfounded) that Northampton would become Ocean City or VA Beach, they viewed the CBBT toll as essential (No Toll-No Control) and they strongly believe that the Zoning Ordinance is the most powerful tool to limit and direct change. They advocate little or no Rt. 13 development and hold strong views regarding signage, lighting etc.

This group, which includes former planning commissioners and some level of expertise in water quality is very familiar with the current ZO and represents the loudest voices against the proposed amendments and process. They also share some of the concerns of other less vocal citizens and are often accused of being opposed to all change. Unfortunately some in this group are viewed as wealthy “come heres” and that perception sets up a natural division with Northampton natives who want to see growth and change. This group advocates that the proposed changes make the ZO “not reflective” of the Comp Plan and believe the Planning Commission should be given time to examine the Comp Plan and ZO first, before the BOS, i.e. therefore “PROCESS” frustration.

Group 2. A second group opposed to the amendments are strong environmentalist whose passion is water quality, preservation and storm water management (soil erosion). They are understandably joined by aquaculture business interests on both the Bay and Seaside.

(1)

Residents of two seaside villages, Oyster and Willis Wharf, align with this group, not exclusively concerned about environmental issues as they are concerned about the ability to control change in their communities and protect access to the seaside waterfront for the working watermen. This group approaches the ZO changes from a scientific impact perspective and pushes for impact studies to be conducted prior to any change.

Group 3. A third group supports most of the amendment changes as they hold the belief that the existing ZO goes beyond the intent of the Comp Plan in its restrictions and thereby represents a MAJOR, (not only) barrier to commercial economic development in the County. This group believes the current ZO has too many districts and sub-districts that offer distinctions without real differences. They believe that the Special Use Permit (SUP) process is used to excess and that by-right uses in some districts should be heavily expanded. For this group the battle cry is making Northampton more “business friendly” and inviting to companies and individuals.
I have not heard anyone in any group state that the ZO is perfect and should not be updated and made more flexible.

Group 4. Finally this last group is composed of the majority of citizens who are simply trying to keep body and soul together in this economic environment. They know nothing about “zoning” and surly will never care about “lot coverage ratios” until it impacts them.

They do know there is a huge fight going on in the county with ugly dialogue and little red signs appearing everywhere. They fear that something is about to happen that may impact their lives and property rights. However, the issue is complex and both sides have arguments that have merit so they are mostly confused and do not know what or who to believe.

This group sees the pressure on county budgets, knows more revenues and jobs are needed, and basically trust the elected officials to protect their rights and act in the best interest of the county as a whole. As such, they are generally supportive of the amendments but they remain concerned.

So where is the BALANCE that moves the ZO forward but also guards against unintended consequences? What elements of the amendment should be carefully reviewed to address the concerns of these groups recognizing that everyone will not be happy no matter what is done. Since the concerns range from the rabid environmentalist to those whose interest is limited to the question “ Just how close to my house can that poultry house be?” all groups should be open to influence from others and compromise where it is good for the County as a whole.

I offer the following comments in the hope you will carefully review these areas before a final vote.

(2)

Group 1 Issues

Residential:

-Increased Density….pp. 15, 17 and 29…(four units per acre) in Hamlet, Village. these quarter acre lots should be reviewed in these Districts. Review density requirements in PUDs ….p 38. No restrictions on density. With over 5000 platted lots already in Northampton, some quarter acre lots, why authorize the creation of more?
-Commercial Uses in Village/Hamlet and Residential Districts.
The following commercial uses should be removed or at a minimum require a SUP for the protection of property rights:

Recreation, Indoor (includes clubs, lounges, arcades, etc.)
Research Facility-unspecified
Retail food and beverage production
Motel or Hotel
Commercial Vehicle Services (Truck stop, fuel station ? )
Heliport
Recreation and Sports OUTDOOR (could include dirt tracks, motorized and non motorized) SUP is required in Commercial zone but not in Residential…Why?
Vehicle park and Camp Grounds
Wind Turbine, small>120ft. and 199 ft. (SUP at a minimum)
Dredge Spoil Disposal Site
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Biomass Conversion to alternative fuel small or large scale
Children’s Residential Facility (when more than 12 people)

Agriculture:

-Remove Industrial Uses from Ag District….even though “waste related” requires SUP, this is totally inconsistent with protection of property rights and is undefined. Use the Industrial District as it is designed, namely to define where industry is desired and infrastructure to support it is possible if not in place.
-Change “Migrant Labor Camp” from by-right to SUP in the Ag District. This change will allow for adjacent property owners to have a voice in location and assure use for only part of the year.
– Retain single -wide homes in all districts with SUP and by-right in AG. If Agriculture and Aquaculture are economic drivers, then workers will need housing as well as other citizens who cannot afford permanent dwellings and property. Retain the Mobile Home District and restrictions on the age of mobile homes being brought into the County.

(3)

Group 2 Issues

-Environmental concerns for water quality——CBPA protection on the Seaside. While I believe the topography and development probabilities on the Seaside are totally different from the Bayside, I would keep these protections until replaced by something else. Shoreline on the Seaside is difficult to access as opposed to the Bayside with multiple creeks and deep water access.

Much of the Seaside in Northampton is protected by ownership and conservation easements. Nevertheless, I would retain this extra level of protection for now.

-Reduced setbacks from Shorelines and wetlands, p. 43 Intensive Farming (C) (2) I interpret to be poultry houses, manure storage, waste storage, chemicals, (only 150 ft. from shorelines and non-tidal wetlands) should be reviewed. In the Ag District a poultry house or houses could be constructed 500 ft. from shorelines, non-tidal wetlands, and PROPERTY LINES, which means close to a Village, Hamlet, or residential area or a residence adjacent in the Ag District. There is no identified additional setback from public roads for intensive farming, thus it could be as little as 60 ft. This is a major concern across all citizen groups.

-Residential waterfront lot widths are reduced to 60 ft.in some districts. pp15-17. While 250 ft. may be at the other extreme for lot width, I feel 60 ft. for new lots is at the other extreme. Is there a way to craft a requirement of 100 to 150 ft. and accommodate specific instances where a narrower width is needed through the site plan and approval?

-Oyster and Willis Wharf residents are concerned with water quality and commercial use issues. Some reasoning for the elimination of the Oyster Waterfront Commercial District should be offered. I would review the uses in the Village- Waterfront Commercial (V-WC) and add to the SUP list Wind Turbines and Wireless Communication facilities.

Group 3 Issues

-Proponents of the amendment changes believe that less restrictive zoning will bring residential and commercial revenues to the County. While I agree that some expansion of commercial on the FLUM is warranted, I am concerned about the elimination of the overlay US 13 Corridor District. While I am sensitive to potential accusations of “spot zoning” in the future, I cannot agree with miles of commercial up zoning in the hope that development will occur. Additional commercial revenue will help ease the burden of property taxes and sensible development on Rt 13 is necessary. By-right designations in the commercial district and zoning huge portions of Rt. 13 commercial will relinquish control of where access roads and stop lights are placed. The ZO should proceed very carefully here.

(4)
-Numerous barriers to entry exist when attempting to attract commercial business and jobs to Northampton. Zoning is one factor that is controllable while a limited supply of fresh water, transportation, work force, and geography are not.

-Elimination of the Town Edge District does not mean the towns will not participate in future planning. If an incorporated town supplies infrastructure (water, sewer, police, etc.) to an area it is only a short matter of time before a boundary line adjustment will be requested and can be justified.

Group 4 Issues

– Like many members of this group, my main concern is the process through which adjacent property owners have a voice when threats to their property values or their right to enjoyment of it surface. Even though many SUPs seem unnecessary and are approved without opposition, there are also instances where the process represents the best of democratic governance where the “little guy” gets a voice. In my view that must not be sacrificed in the pursuit of expediency.

-Section 154.1-201 and throughout the proposed amendment the Zoning Administrator is granted extensive power through the “uses similar to permitted uses” and “uses similar to special use permit uses”.

While I have advocated increased flexibility, there is a grave danger that this authority goes beyond what is prudent. It places the Zoning Administrator in an untenable position and subject to manipulation.

New uses will undoubtedly be requested and the proper process for their adoption is the ZO “text amendment” process which has been used in the past. It is straight forward and can be used in a timely manner. I urge the Board to review this issue carefully and remove it from all Districts.

In conclusion, I hope my suggestions have merit and I offer them without any disappointment if they are not adopted. I hope they are positive and thought provoking.

Sincerely,

H. Spencer Murray
(5)