Supervisors stalemate 3-3 on rural area ordinances
At their meeting on October 10, 2007, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors were unable to reach agreement on three ordinance proposals related to protection of stream buffers, protection of critical slopes, and holding periods for lots on family sub-divisions. Over 80 speakers addressed the board during a public hearing that started at around 7:30 PM and was closed four hours later. The Board's acrimonious deliberations started around 11:30 PM and went into Thursday morning.
Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) started the discussion suggesting there might be consensus on the stream buffer protections and she asked if the Board might consider voting on the three proposals separately. Supervisors Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) and David Slutzky (Rio) both said they would support moving forward with the stream buffer protections which would apply rules that already exist on intermittent streams in half the county and apply them to the remainder of the rural area.
Next, Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) pointed out that it was getting late and he was uncomfortable voting on matters this late in the evening. He indicated a preference for another work session to discuss the proposals. Slutzky reminded the Board that they recently voted on the Biscuit Run rezoning well past midnight last month. Then Supervisors Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) and David Wyant (White Hall) offered their assessments and indicated they were not prepared to support any of the three proposed ordinance changes at this time.
After almost one hour of debate, no motions were made for or against the full proposals*, thus there was not a formal vote since the board was split 3-3. The Board adjourned without specifying when these matters would be considered again.
The audio recording in this podcast features the one hour discussion by the Board of Supervisors immediately following the public hearing.
Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071010-BOS-rural.mp3
* NOTE: Sally Thomas moved approval of a portion of the proposed changes to the watershed protection ordinance which related to the determination of erosion impact areas. That motion failed 3-3 (Rooker, Slutzky, Thomas FOR; Boyd, Dorrier, Wyant AGAINST). That vote was then reconsidered by a separate unanimous vote to allow it to be discussed again at a future meeting..
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supervisors stalemate 3-3 on rural area ordinances: