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 2 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 1) suits, challenging the denial under both the county’s subdivision and zoning ordinances. At the same time, Goode applied to the supervisors in December, 1978, for approval of the development under the subdivision ordinance. Plats were referred to the planning commission for recommendations in January, 1979. The planners concluded that Goode’s development did not “substantially comply” with ordinance regulations on slope since several of the lots contained less than five acres under 14 percent grade.
Subsequently, Goode redesigned part of the subdivision, reducing the number of lots to 13 and combining two five-acre lots into a ten-acre lot containing seven acres under 14 percent slope. The remainder of the subdivision consists of one seven-acre lot with over five acres under 14 percent slope and 11 five-acre lots with traces ranging from .75 to .05 acres over 14 percent slope.
In April, the supervisors again denied approval to the redesigned subdivision in a split decision, going against the advice of Commonwealth Attorney George Davis in voting to delay action on the development. Davis had earlier advised the supervisors to approve the subdivision proposal since, in his opinion, it ‘‘substantially complied” with ordinance requirements on slope. Subsequently, Davis asked for and received permission from Circuit Court Judge Rayner V. Snead to withdraw as counsel to the supervisors on the Goode case, citing “irreconcilable conflict” over “substantive law and procedural law."
In presenting the amended plat with 13 lots once more to the board last Thursday, Compton reported that Goode's latest request for subdivision approval came “at the urging of Mr. Davis” with the aim of eliminating the need for court action.
95.5%