Photo Credit: The James River Journal. At the November 16, 2011 Board of Supervisors meeting, members of the community protested their rights and freedoms. The meeting was overwhelmingly attended

York County, Virginia, with its nearly 65,500 residents, has strong historical ties to fighting for freedom. It was here, in Yorktown, where General Cornwallis surrendered in 1781 to George Washington, marking the end of the American Revolutionary War.

Now, 230 years later, a new conflict has emerged, embroiling this small county in a fight for the very same freedoms fought for on that battlefield long ago.

This new battle is over what residents can do on their own land—whether it be growing oysters or raising chickens—and it has pitted neighbor against neighbor, residents against their local elected officials, and even local government against state government.

Property Rights Front and Center

Property rights are at the center of this conflict. Residents have been protesting against their local officials because they don’t want to be told how many chickens or horses they can have, or that they can farm on land zoned for agriculture.

Proposed changes to zoning ordinances by the York County Board of Supervisors (BOS) include limiting farming for personal purposes, and even taking away future farming in zones where it was previously allowed—in rural residential and rural conservation zones. That didn’t sit well with folks here in York County, and they rose up and made their voices heard. Online blogs, petitions, meeting minutes, local media stories, and letters to the editors, and letters to neighbors all depict the tense atmosphere.

Violation of Rights

“We felt it was a violation of our property rights,” said Mary Leedom, resident of York County. “They can’t by ordinance take away property rights. They are servants of the people, elected officials.” Leedom is also the co-leader of the Peninsula Tea Party. “The biggest changes were in rural residential and rural conservation. We have the right to agriculture, the right to farm. These changes would take our rights away. These zones are where agriculture is approved by zoning right.”

Ironically, the BOS changes were proposed in response to a bill sponsored by Senator Thomas Norment—SB 1190—that the BOS deemed as an overreaching state government, according to one York County Board Supervisor. That bill would have taken away the rights of local communities to have a say in what happened in their own backyard.

“The fundamental issue of that bill would have precluded citizens and the local community as to whether they wanted a business in their community,” said Thomas Shepperd, District 5 Representative of the York County Board of Supervisors.

SB 1190 Seeks to Expand Right to Farm

SB 1190 sought to expand the definition of agriculture in the Right to Farm Act in Virginia. Norment wanted to add aquaculture to the definition of agriculture. So, for example, if a resident wanted to conduct oyster farming on his property, he could, as long as his property was zoned rural residential. He would not need a special use permit. Before SB-1190 was introduced, a resident who wanted to farm oysters on his property would need a special use permit by the local Board of Supervisors to do so.

Bill On Behalf of Constituent

SB 1190 was introduced by Norment to help Gregg Garrett, and Norment admitted such in the media. Gregg Garrett, of the Gregg Garrett Oyster & Seafood Company, would use the permit to conduct oyster farming on his 6-acre residential property in York County. It was faced with opposition by some residents and the local planning board.

It was not a small, residential oyster operation—but included “series of oyster cages, floats, lantern nets, and bags—totaling up 1,530 in number” according to the York County Planning Board’s report. Garrett also wanted up to four non-resident employees on his property to “grow, harvest, shuck, package and ship oysters at his address.” Trucks traffic would also increase on the residential road, and work would begin at 5 a.m.

Garrett pulled the permit, before it could be denied by the Board of Supervisors in late 2010. On January 12, 2011, Norment introduced SB 1190.

But while Norment admitted he introduced SB 1190 to help Garrett in his aquaculture business, he denied it was a political favor. The Daily Press reported that Norment “bristled at any suggestion the legislation was introduced to curry political favor with Garrett who is a successful conservative fundraiser.”

The paper quoted Garrett as saying: “People need to find better things to do with their time than speculating on that hogwash,” Norment said. “The bill had nothing to do with political favors. … When people get upset with legislators, they start looking for ghosts behind any tree to attack the legislation. It’s part of the process and a figment of someone’s fertile imagination.”

Legislation Written For One Person

In a letter to neighbors, published on the York Tea Party website, Shepperd was bothered that legislation was written for one person. “What bothers me most is why Senator Norment feels so compelled to act on a local issue for a single individual. To give you some perspective, consider this: There are over eight million residents and just over 40 state senators in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This means that each senator represents about 200,000 citizens. Yet, when the York County Board of Supervisors, which represents over 65,000 citizens tried to meet with Senator Norment on the County’s legislative program, which included issues such as funding support for education, transportation, and public safety, we were unable to meet,” he wrote.

“SB 1190 is a slap in the face to York County,” Shepperd wrote. “By denying citizen input on local activities, the bill represents big government telling us that it knows what’s best for our communities.”

So while SB 1190 passed in the Senate, it failed in the House. Shepperd told The Revered Review that Norment has assured him he will not sponsor any similar legislation. “In retrospect, he called it his mea culpa.”

“I don’t think his staff did him any favors. I don’t want to make any excuses for him,” Shepperd said. He said it caused a “pretty good reaction” and Shepperd said he found it surprising that SB 1190 was introduced without “at least talking to the local communities.”

Ordinance Changes Not Resolved

But while SB 1190 may now be dead, the lingering effects of it are still felt in York County, as the zoning ordinance changes have yet to be resolved.

For his part, and others on the York County BOS, Shepperd said that the zoning ordinance changes were proposed to protect the local citizens from the state government. “We were trying to protect our community.”

Strong Reaction To Proposed Changes

But the BOS felt a backlash from the community, and lashed out at the board’s attempt to take away their property rights. The reaction from the residents was evident. For instance, at a local board meeting last November, people showed up en masse. That meeting’s agenda was when the proposed changes were expected to be voted on.

According to Leedom, at a typical Board of Supervisors meeting, zero to 10 residents may show up—maybe up to 60, at most. This night, 160 people showed up, far exceeding the building’s fire code. Another room had to be opened up to accommodate the overflow of the crowd. A webcam was set up so people could watch the proceedings. She said protesters were outside, holding signs, and a petition with nearly 400 names were presented to the Board against their changes.

Resident after resident spoke against the restrictive changes proposed by the BOS, according to the meeting minutes. Few agreed with the zoning changes. The seven-hour marathon meeting, said Leedom, lasted until the wee hours of the morning.

The James River Journal, the local community newspaper, covered the property rights fight that pitted neighbor Garrett against fellow neighbor Tim McCulloch. Both had letters published in the paper, which can be viewed by clicking on the following link. http://jamesriverjournal.com/opinion/14595-concerns-about.html

Don’t Screw With Us

In the end, a vote on the ordinance changes was postponed and is expected to take place on or before March. As for Garrett, he filed a for a new special use permit, albeit on a smaller scale, according to the York County BOS website.

As Shepperd explained, the zoning changes were an “attempt to tell the state not to screw around with us.”

Ironically, that’s the response that the Board of Supervisors got from the people in its county: Don’t screw around with our property rights.