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 8 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
appropriate means to remedy the problem confronting Mr. and Mrs. Neal.
He recommended that the BZA dismiss the Neal application on the grounds that (1) there exists no hardship peculiar to the subject property and (2) the BZA lacks jurisdiction to grant a zoning variance in this case.
Baumgardner suggested that the matter be referred to the supervisors for action “included but not limited to amendment or repeal of the above-cited sections of the ordinance, as they deem appropriate.”
(Following a public hearing in July, 1980, the Rappahannock planning commission unanimously recommended amendments to the RS-1 section of the zoning ordinance which added uses allowed by right, special permit uses and minimum lot size and reworded the statement of intent to encourage large-lot, low density residential areas compatible with agricultural and conservation uses. The supervisors, however, never acted on the proposed amendments.)
(In addition, at last month’s planning commission meeting at which he presented the rough draft pf the first few chapter* of the county’s revised zoning ordinance, professional planner Dick McNear maintained that blanket prohibition against resubdivision of property zoned RS-1 is “a bit arbitrary" and warned that it would be legally indefensible if challenged in court. He met with opposition from planning commissioners, however, who emphasized repeatedly that they wanted
89.7%