The Accomack County Planning Commission voted Wednesday night (9/4/08) to recommend the County adopt the Chesapeake Bay Act for the seaside of the eastern shore at the September 17th Board of Supervisors meeting.
The Planning Commission has stated in the past the intention to enact some controls but not the entire Bay Act and it seems that’s now changed.
The Commission has chosen not to write regulations specifically geared to the seaside, believing it easier to use the existing Bay Act and just apply it to the seaside.
The BOS would need to vote to hold a joint public hearing if they are open to the concept. Public Hearings must be advertised for two weeks and written notices mailed to all property owners who could be affected.
Legally a public hearing could be scheduled for the latter part of October, so you will not have much time to send notice to your customers.
While most Eastern Shore Association of Realtors members will agree that we do need additional regulations to protect our seaside environment, preserving it for the future generations of the shore, is the Chesapeake Bay Act the one we actually need?
Often people assume that Realtors are against taking steps to protect our environment. We are not. We support sound environmental policy because we love where we live. If we did not, why would we stay or how could we sell it to our next door neighbors? But when past, present and future customers have so much at stake we need to point out to them how changing rules or laws can drastically change their rights. We are a strong negotiating force and should definitely put our two cents in against needless or excessive regulation, especially when it tries to disguise itself as sensible land use.
Tags: Accomack County, association of realtors, eastern shore, the bay act on sea side
September 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm |
Farming and NASA are exempt from the Bay Act regulations. Farming produces most of the nutrient pollution, not septic systems. The seaside marshes are healthy and we would like to keep them healthy so if a home needs to have a 100′ setback, why shouldn’t the crops also have to be back 100′ and installe a buffer, to stop run off into the salt marsh, bays and creeks? I don’t even want to think about the jet fuel.. potential contamination from Wallops.. Its too mind boggling.
Did you know, if a working “farm” is purchased for residential development, the owner/developer has to PLANT a 100 foot veg., buffer along any shoreline?
September 9, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
I just found that out on a flight home to the Shore from Boston. The plane flew right down the Atlantic Coast line and from CT. to VA. tomato farms had beds right to the waters edge. I was amazed.
September 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
I think it would be horrible to change the setbacks on the seaside for homes. I do agree with Toni that if said setbacks were put in place for homesites, certainly setbacks should be put in for chemical run off from farms……I totally agree that contamination from chemical runoff is a far greater hazard than septic systems. And why aren’t setbacks put in place for farmers now anyway??? Doesn’t everybody realize that the highest cancer rate in the US are on the Delmarva peninsula? And that is REAL OLD NEWS!! What is our county coming too???
September 10, 2008 at 12:53 am |
I met with a supervisor today that states farms will not be exempt, however they won’t police them because the farmers are left to employ what is called “best practices” meaning they are supposed to abide by the rules, but no one enforces it. Jane Corson Lassiter is involved in that in some capacity isn’t she? Perhaps someone should ask her about enforcement of the regs and “best practices” on farms. I have to wonder what could be so difficult to regulate a farm, all that would have to be done is to issue a mandate and then go out and inspect them to make sure the mandate is executed. Its not rocket science…!
I understand also that this could affect Assateague Island and parking, because the Federal Government usually adopts local ordinance (even though they don’t have to) if its a higher standard than the federal regs. If anyone has any information on that, I’d love to hear from you.
September 10, 2008 at 1:03 am |
Ms Lassiter I understand IS who we ned to contact when we find ‘negligence’ in farming… there are not enough people to police so they are welcome to the publics input ~ or so I am told. I understand that towns will not be affected: ie: Chincoteague. And from my Supervisor interactions I believe our local government will be ‘open’ to allowing variances to developers for an “amount of time” from the passing (??) of this bill. Actually on September 18th we (ESAR) are going to have a brown bag lunch with Steve Mallette to “hear, see, and ask” what is going on and what we can expect… to start after the BOD meeting, not before 12:00pm. ALL are welcome, of course.
Lets have some stuff in writting we’d like to see… If need be.
September 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
In response to Trapnier’s comments that Agriculture is exempt from the existing Bay Act regulations, her statement is incorrect. Both agriculture and forestry have performance standards and requirements under this program. Farmers must have conservation plans that outline site specific requirements that define environmentally sensitve sites, management practices, soil fertility and other requirements based on the type of agricultural activity. Buffer strips are required adjacent to water courses that can only be reduced if specific performance measures are incorporated. Poultry farmers must have nutrient managmenet plans for the application of polutry manure in order to balance the nutrients applied with the uptake from the specifc crop to be planted.
In the event a pre-existing lot is incapable of meeting the 100′
buffer requriement, the Buidling and Zoninig Dept. director can administratively reduce the buffer width to 50′.
Relative to Forestry or timber harvesting operations, a buffer is also required. Monitoring is performed by the Virginia Department of Forestry.
A variety of incentive programs are avaible to promote and encourage the development of forested buffers along the shoreline. Forested buffers are very benficial for water quality in that the deep roots encourage infiltration of runoff while absorbing excess nutrients. Forested buffers also are beneficial for many types of wildlife, are effective screens to protect aesthetics and properly placed can greatly reduce home heating cost.
The shore is unique ifrom any other areain the state, since our water quality is dependant on those within our community and not other upstream county discharges. We only have ourselves to blame if we do not protect our water bodies and the values these resources produce for all of our citizens, including home owners, touists, fisherman, the aquaculture industry. Protectting these values defines our community and encourages the maintenance of a diverse and health economy. I would suggest using these natural attributes of our community as a marketing tool by the real estate indusry has and will hopefully continue to define who we are and encorague future economic development.
All incorproated towns, including Chincoteague, Onancock, Wachapreague, Parksley, and Belle Haven are exempt from Bay Act regulations and similar regulations can only be developed by incorporated towns.
The federal government is also exempt, but typically federal agencies try to comply with these regulations if possible.
I believe facts are our friend, not our foe!
I very much appreciate the ESRA efforts to educate members of your association and welcome any opportuntiy to facilitate greater understanding withn our community to insure a prosperous future.
September 10, 2008 at 9:08 pm |
Thank you Steve for your valuable input.
ESAR is just concerned about maintaining the balance between a healthy Chesapeake Bay/Sea Board and a viable economy on the eastern shore. We will support reasonable and fair regulations that promote a balance between economic growth, the protection of private property rights and the preservation of the environment while opposing any initiatives that exceed these criteria. The Bay Act, as written, with no additional regulation ultimately, brings balance to the shore.
September 12, 2008 at 1:53 am |
Mr. Mallette, the statement I made was what was stated at the PC’s recent public meeting. I subsequently learned that they will not be exempt, but that farms use something called “Best Practices” however I haven’t learned how and if its inspected or enforced by county officials. Perhaps you will shed some light on that. I also learned that the Federal Government normally adopts local regulations, if they are of a higher standard than the Federal standard. What do you see in the future regarding the bay act as it pertains to Wallops Island and Assateague Island? We all know that Mr. Wolff will be having his regular monthly meeting on Monday at 7pm at Wolff’s Sandwich Shop in Atlantic, with Jim McGowan as guest speaker to explain the way the bay act on seaside will affect property owners. I encourage people to attend and listen to Mr. McGowan’s presentation. It’s important that people know how it will affect them and what it will cost to apply and enforce these regs on the seaside.
September 12, 2008 at 1:58 am |
Question, is this blog just for realtors or can anyone join in ?
September 28, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
Prior to the upcoming Realtor’s meeting, I suggest you all read the article printed in September 2008 Bay Journal by Gerald W. Winegrad, former state senator and chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Environment. He is a professor with the University of Maryland Graduate Scholld of Public Policy, where he teaches a course on Bay restoration. He has received many awards for his environmental work including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award. I was given a copy of this article by a local lawfirm. Its an eye opener…!