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 3 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
BJrB££HNE HUTCHINSON
ou can interpret this ordinance in six or seven different ways,” maintained Zoning Administrator mil Smet, in defense of administrative subdivision approvals chalenged by the Planning Commission last week.
4^ issue is the go-ahead given to Chns Parris by Mr. Smet for subdivision of five lots from the Smith tract in Amissville and the proposed subdivision of four additional lots off another parcel from the same tract sold to Jon Morgan.
Planning Commissioner Newbill
P?*n^e^ out that the county’s subdivision ordinance allows for the administrative approval of up to five lots from a parcel of record as of 1973 but only so long as adjoining land has not already been subdivided.
If the adjoining land has already been subdivided, then the subdivider must go through the rezoning process set out in the ordinance, Mr. Miller said.
He also raised a question as to whether Mr. Morgan’s property is zoned agricultural, as concluded by Mr. Smet, or whether it is conservation and thus would require a minimum lot size of 25 acres (except for family subdivision exceptions for which the minimum is five acres).
“How did it get divided? How did we get those five acre parcels in there?” asked Planning Commissioner Werner Krebser, examining the plat of Mr. Parrish’s subdivision.
“This has been approved and recorded,” answered the zoning administrator.
“Who did it?” Dr. Krebser demanded. “Why didn’t the Planning Commission know about it?”
Commissioner Miller explained that Mr. Smet had made a mistake in authorizing the subdivision of the Mr. Parrish’s 74 acres into one lot of 30 acres, one of 25 acres and three of
93.4%