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 4 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Armed with zoning and subdivision ordinance restrictions on development, the county won a major victory last week in the fight to control growth.
There were no trumpets sounded at Thursday’s supervisor meeting. Surrender came in executive session between the board and Claude Compton, attorney for developer C. L. Goode.
Goode’s proposed Flint Hill subdivision, a development of 13 fiveacre lots just outside the village, has been before the county for approval tor almost three years. His plans have been turned down again and again, primarily on the grounds that the subdivision doesn’t comply with ordinance requirements on slope.
Rappahannock’s ordinances state that each of Goode’s lots must contain five acres under 14 per cent slope. The developer dropped lots and redesigned boundary lines several times with no success. The planners and the supervisors were adamant—4.75 acres, 4.82 acres, 4.95 acres were not enough. It had to be a full five acres in each lot.
While Goode made trips back to the drawing board, he also consulted with legal counsel and launched a court suit, challenging the county’s denial of Mountain Slopes subdivision.
Goode’s suit, now scheduled for hearing on December 10, involves more than just a 13-lot subdivision. It includes an attack on the constitutionality and legality of both the zoning and subdivision ordinance. It raises the issues of whether (1) slope is a valid and precise criteria for determining lot size, (2) large lot zoning is exclusionary and (3) the ordinance was properly adopted in accordance with all technical aspects of the law.
91.8%