Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blight Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds blight ordinance and real‑estate tax‑abatement items for further work after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing and comments raising concerns about definitions and effects on farms and owners of large tracts, the board agreed to revise the proposed blight ordinance language and consider it again at a work session in October; no votes were taken tonight.
The board opened public hearings on a proposed real‑estate tax abatement program and a separate blight ordinance. No one spoke on the abatement program and staff and counsel noted the draft referenced a local code definition that does not yet exist; the county attorney recommended staff align any local language with the Virginia Code and return with suggested edits.
Reverend Gerard Wilson and other members of the public pressed the board about how 'blight' would be defined, how timelines (including the proposed two‑year remediation window) would apply to farmers and owners of large properties, and whether enforcement could create unintended taxpayer burdens. "My question is that when you get vandalism, you have a fire, or you have something to that nature... What is the standard gonna be where somebody over here says, okay. This is blight?" Reverend Wilson asked. Board members emphasized two stated goals for the ordinance — protecting the tax base and addressing criminal/drug blight — and agreed to revisit and refine the language in a work session, with no action taken tonight.
