Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 14 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
shall be deemed to have vested rights in his zoning and to be unaffected by subsequent amendments when the local governing body has a.) accepted proffers; b.)granted a special exception with conditions; c.) the local B.Z.A. has granted a variance with conditions; or d.) the landowner in good faith has filed a preliminary or final plat or site plan and has materially changed his financial position in reliance thereon.”
“This is the most infamous ‘vesting1 bill,” Mr. McCarthy said. “I feel that we all could live with a-c, but d is absurd. What is ‘materially changed his financial position?’ The Virginia Supreme Court has said vesting takes place at final site plan or subdivision plat approval, legislating around this is bad law, and bad faith with the taxpayer,” the memorandum continued.
Since the supervisors’ meeting many changes have been made to the “vesting” bills. One, House Bill 721, has passed the house and is in committee in the Senate.
Another vesting bill, an amended version of Del. Jackson’s, was killed in the house Tuesday.
Another bill Mr. McCarthy brought to the supervisors’ attention * would have reduced from 90 to 60 days the period of time a planning commission has to consider a rezoning request. This bill was killed in committee.
Another bill would have shifted the “burden of proof on zoning map amendments, zoning ordinance text amendments, or special exceptions from the applicant to the governing body.” This bill was also killed in committee.
Mr. McCarthy’s memo concluded, “I urge the board to oppose every one of these pieces of legislation as frightening inroads on the very limited authority of the Board
94.2%