Letter

Letter

Support

S.B. 592

To the Editor:

I am writing as a member of the Rappahannock County Farm Bureau |o inform our citizens about Senate Bilj 592, and why we ask for your support in the upcoming General Assembly session. A true story will illustrate:

An elderly widow in an eastern Virginia county owns 36 acres of forest land. She wanted to harvest 25 acres of timber to help pay her bills.

She had the Virginia Department of Forestry prepare a management ' plan so she could have the timber harvested properly.

To her surprise, she found she would .reed a $300 permit from the county to advertise the timber sale. This was to learn if there would be any public opposition — to something done in accordance with Department of Forestry guidance on her land, her timber.

Despite needing the money, she did not apply, fearing the $300 would be lost should a citizen or the Board of Supervisors block the sale!

Even had she been allowed to harvest, the county requires 100-foot visual buffers on state roads, as. well as 50-foot buffers on other properly lines. That would significantly reduce the harvest, especially on her small tract, for no sensible reason!

There are 48 localities in Virginia with ordinances, permit procedures or restrictive requirements dealing with forest land, private forest land. Many of these "local laws" perplex and frustrate private owners; all add regulatory burdens and costs, wasteful costs.

Regrettably, we need a state law to override many local laws restricting torestry activities on private land so as to make forestry regulation uniform. Senate Bill 592 does this. Up for consideration in the General Assembly in early 1997, the bill would prohibit local governments from using police, zoning and planning powers to block or unnecessarily limit forestry practices conducted per state forestry laws.

Other states have laws similar to S.B' 592. The sky hasn't fallen in there!