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 1 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
division, the supervisors requested the planners to determine if the proposed 14 five-acre lot development “substantially” complied with provisions of the Rappahannock subdivision ordinance.
Action on the Goode subdivision began almost three years ago. After a public hearing in the summer of 1976. the planners, by majority vote, recommended that the necessary rezoning for Goode’s development from agriculture and conservation to residential subdivision be denied. Following a second public hearing that September, the supervisors also turned down the rezoning in a three-to-two split decision.
Subsequently, Goode filed suit under the county’s zoning ordinance. Later, he amended his pleadings to' allege that the county, under the subdivision ordinance, couldn’t deny a development if that development met all the standards set forth in the subdivision ordinance.
Commonwealth Attorney George Davis then advised the supervisors and the planners that the county couldn’t defend the subdivision denial under existing state enabling legislation. However, Davis also maintained that -'Goode hadn’t followed proper procedure, specifically by his failure to apply for a public hearing under the subdivision ordinanceSince
then, the Goode case has been continued several times and is still before the courts with the latest hearing date'set for March 12.
However, in December 1978, the developer finally made the public hearing application that Davis felt was lacking. Davis advised the supervisors that they
(Continued on Page 3)
88.7%