Last night there was a final Democratic debate for gubernatorial candidates before the June 9 primary (no primary required for single Republican). Throughout, there were people working to "fact check" statements made by candidates.
Last night there was a Christiansburg Town Council meeting, and citizens would do well to do some "fact checking" of their own.
At Monday's Planning Commission meeting, members were told a rezoning of less than 3 acres had drawn some letters of opposition. An application for rezoning and subdividing an adjacent tract of 27 acres previously drew strong opposition due to road safety and sewer concerns. At this council meeting, however; there was no opposition voiced by four speakers -- although one spoke about concerns relative to the town's sewer pump and asked for a study to verify capacity. No one spoke against an elderly couple cutting out a parcel to allow one of their grown children to build a home.
A rezoning request denied by council March 17 for property at 2880 Roanoke Street had come before the Planning Commission again, and was approved by council last night. Adjacent property owners had expressed concerns about stormwater runoff in an area which has seen significant development, but the contracted buyer's proffers appeared to address most issues and promised a much improved appearance and business management.
Still, based upon the Town Code (Chapter 30 - Zoning), as published and made available to the public via the town's website, it wouldn't appear a denied request could reappear due to more promises, or proffers.
This issue came up again relative to the next rezoning request for just over 21 acres, which had been denied by council in November 2007 and saw tremendous opposition from residents because of anticipated impacts to housing values and numerous safety concerns when it was brought forward again this January.
In February, the Planning Commission approved this request by a 4:1 vote (one absent), but then the applicant withdrew it. Comments were made about this coming back "at any time" and questions were asked about whether residents had any legal standing. They were told they did not (and no reference was made relative to seeking advice from an independent attorney or appealing the decision to any other body was suggested at that time).
Many other issues around this request came up, yet the point now is that one of the town's attorneys (present at this meeting) stated "changes had been made" and a different town attorney had previously determined that more proffers (added to an existing application), meant you had a new, separate application. Therefore, the code referencing withdrawn applications wasn't applicable.
This sounds as if a town attorney interpreted Town Code, rather than being decided by a court. Or, that the code has changed -- but that should mean what is published via the website accurately reflects any changes and is further documented in Town Council minutes relative to holding Public Hearings and voting to do so. Perhaps there was a lawsuit or other details to explain this, but no specifics were offered to quantify the attorney's statements. Perhaps there's clarification somewhere that when the one-year rule does apply, it defines whether that year begins from the date the application was denied or was withdrawn...or some other date.
This just touches the surface of public comments which began at 7:30 pm and concluded when the Citizen Hearings portion of council's agenda closed at 10:10 pm. Much more time was spent by citizens addressing property damages sustained throughout the town, apparently brought about by failed stormwater management, an overwhelmed sewer system, and drainage systems designed well before the growth seen in Christiansburg over the past two decades.
All other matters -- including adopting the proposed fiscal year 2009-2010 budget as presented and fee increases relative to reviewing site plans and subdivisions (which hadn't been adjusted since the first town manager was preparing to retire) -- were concluded by 10:40 pm.
This is just an opinion, based on observation -- come to council meetings and form your own. And then ask questions and check facts which support any statements being made, verbally or otherwise.