Tensions were palpable at last week’s public hearing in Farmville regarding a conditional use permit for a 10-unit dwelling at the intersections of High, Appomattox and Oak streets. The proposed dwelling would be a 30-bed complex and is set to replace four historic homes that house just a few people. Owners Robert “Bobby” Martin and wife, Sherry, originally proposed a 195-bed complex for the sight. However, following an outpouring of opposition from the community the Martins changed that plan to the current 30-bed complex.

During the public hearing three people spoke in favor of the project, one person took a neutral stance and 17 people spoke against the project. As previously reported in The Herald, “Town Mayor David Whitus said the town would not take action on the proposed project until the July meeting, when Ward A representative Greg Cole and Ward E representative J.J. “Jamie” Davis, who were absent, would return and recently-elected Ward B representative Brian Vincent would assume the seat.”

At the hearing the Martins attorney, Frank Rennie, stated “Others in this community have been afforded the opportunity to utilize their property and have been granted that right of this council,” Rennie said. “The Martins only ask that they are given the same opportunities that others have received in the community. The Martins have gone to great lengths and great expense to plan their building, taking into account the input of the community. They’ve made every effort to accommodate the community, and now they ask for the same accommodation from the council. There’s no question the Martins may remove the buildings on their property and do so without input from the town or from the neighbors.” He went on to say, “So if the Martins have a right to remove the buildings, and the council can’t consider aesthetics as a sole factor, it would be consistent for the council to approve the Martins’ plans. The Martins are counting on this council to be fair, and to provide them with equal treatment under the law.”

“Strong emotions have been displayed in this chamber,” Rennie said. “But what this boils down to is a fundamental right to utilize private property consistent with the law. That’s what the Martins are proposing, and that’s what this body should endorse.”

While it’s a difficult situation with the desires of the community on one side and the wants of the property owner on the other, we assert that property owners are part of the overall community and that having a right doesn’t necessarily make it right.