|
Bath enacts zoning law by 3-2 vote; ordinance made effective Sunday
Editor's note: The following article was gleaned from the Oct. 11, 1973 edition of The Recorder. Joseph C. Pritchard was publisher.
WARM SPRINGS - Bath County's Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday morning to adopt a zoning ordinance for the county.
Voting for the controversial ordinance were Chairman Roy M. Cleek, who represents Warm Springs District, and Supervisors Norman T. May Sr. of Cedar Creek District and Clarence F. McMullen of Valley Springs District. The negative votes were cast by Supervisors Stuart L. Hall of Williamsville District and Charles A. Lowman Jr. of Millboro District.
Prior to the landmark vote on zoning - which has been a hot issue since the county planning commission first presented its proposed ordinance to the supervisors in January 1968 - Hall and Lowman pressed for a referendum on the issue. However, they were outvoted 2-3, giving an indication on how the vote on the ordinance itself would go.
And, following the vote, Hall and Lowman challenged the right of May and McMullen to vote on the ordinance, since they were members of the planning commission, which drafted it. This ushered in a dizzying sequence of events in which (1) McMullen resigned from the planning commission, (2) the vote on the ordinance was rescinded, and (3) the zoning ordinance was readopted by the same 3-2 vote.
Also, Lowman challenged McMullen's eligibility to serve on the board of supervisors because of a possible conflict of interest arising out of McMullen's association with Home Oil Co., Inc., which supplies fuel to the county.
But McMullen, who was appointed by Circuit Court Judgedesignate Harold Sinclair in June to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of John M. Trimble, and who is serving in this capacity until after the Nov. 6 special election to determine a permanent successor, said he would like to see proof of any conflict on his part. He said he abstains from any discussion and decision on transactions between the county and Home Oil.
The ordinance, which becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 14, would divide the county into five districts - agricultural limited, agricultural general, residential, business and industrial. More than 90 percent of the county's area would be placed into agricultural districts, with the residential, business and industrial districts mainly in the Warm Springs Valley and in the vicinity of Millboro and Millboro Springs.
It would also establish a board of zoning appeals which would consider rezoning decisions made by the board of supervisors.
In asking for a decision on zoning Tuesday, Chairman Cleek noted that the Board of Supervisors has taken no action on the ordinance in the nearly six years since it was first presented by the planners. "So far we've extended the planning commission the courtesy of neither passing nor rejecting it and I think it's high time we do something," he said.
Lowman, who with Hall has vigorously opposed any move toward zoning, then made a motion for a referendum "to give the people a chance to speak." He said he would favor spot or strip zoning but opposed zoning the entire county.
Cleek, however, didn't see things that way. "We're elected to make the decisions," he said, adding that "if we postpone this again, we can be here Judgement Day and we'll still be arguing about it."
Lowman's motion received a prompt second by Hall, who said, "I don't think the board knows enough about zoning to enforce it."
McMullen then called for the question, and the motion was defeated 2-3, with Hall and Lowman voting for it and Cleek, May and McMullen opposing.
May immediately moved that the zoning ordinance be adopted, with McMullen seconding the motion, which passed 3-2.
Hall and Lowman challenged the legality of the two planning commission members voting for the ordinance. Commonwealth's Attorney Erwin S. Solomon said the Code of Virginia states that one member of the board of supervisors may serve on the planning commission. McMullen has been a member of the planning commission since it was formed while May was appointed earlier this year to replace Walter Farnsworth.
Solomon said he felt the planning commission could not have two members of the board of supervisors on it. McMullen said he would resign if necessary, and Cleek asked for a motion that McMullen's resignation be accepted with regret. A motion to this effect passed unanimously with Hall adding, "I'm glad to get rid of him."
A motion to rescind the ordinance also passed unanimously. Then May moved again to adopt the ordinance, received a second from McMullen, and the ordinance passed for a second time by a 3-2 vote, with Hall and Lowman still voting no.
Lowman said he questioned the legality of how Cleek was conducting the meeting. Cleek told him to "take your troubles to the courts. You have the right to appeal if you wish to."
The zoning ordinance was debated at a public hearing Wednesday night of last week which attracted an overflow crowd to the circuit courtroom at the courthouse.
Lowman urged a referendum, but Solomon, who acted as moderator for the two-hour-long session, said a referendum would be advisory only and couldn't be binding.
Lowman and Hall then contended that only the wealthy residents of the county wanted zoning and that zoning worked a hardship on less affluent citizens. "The wealthy man can get what he wants," Lowman said. It's the little man who has to pay."
"It's your utopia and our hell," Hall said. "Just let our native people live as they can."
Their arguments were refuted by Edward T. Walters of Nimrod Hall, who warned that both the native Bath Countian with a little land and the wealthy man who has chosen Bath as an adopted home would lose if property values tumble because of undesirable development.
However, Walters said, the man of lesser means "will lose much more if his property values drop and his beautiful Bath County is no more because of the rendering plants, massage parlors, roadhouse joints and other nuisances that might develop if there are no controls on growth."
Other proponents of zoning warned that if Bath doesn't do a sensible job of zoning, the state or federal government might do it for them. Also, they said, certain funds might not be forthcoming from the state and federal governments without zoning.
Wednesday night's hearing bogged down in the definition of mobile homes as contrasted to trailers and just how the influx of trailers or mobile homes expected to occur during construction of Vepco's pumped storage project on Back Creek should be handled if zoning were enacted.
| 
