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 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Continued from page 1
the subdivision requirements which the Halls maintained were not satisfied when the original plat was approved by Col. McNear in 1977.
In a special meeting last Wednesday, zoning administrator John McCarthy advised that to accede to the Lozanos’ request, the supervisors would have to approve:
(1) an administratively authorized subdivision of more than five lots (the ordinance limits administratively approved subdivisions to five lots; if more than five lots are to be created, the land must first be rezoned to residential subdivision),
(2) two exceptions for lots less than 25 acres to be served by a road with a right-of-w'ay of less than 50 feet,
(3) an exception to the requirement that a preliminary plat be submitted to the Planning Commission.
At last week’s special meeting, the board members conceded that a legal challenge appeared likely, whether they approved or denied the Lozanos’ request for exceptions to the county’s subdivision regulations.
Appearances didn’t change at Monday’s meeting, as attorneys for both sides continued the argument.
Elliott DeJarnette reminded the supervisors that his clients thought they were buying two validly subdivided parcels of land since the plat carried the approving signature of the county’s agent. He asked that the exception request be granted on hardship grounds, contending that the Lozanos have been “paying higher taxes on two pieces of property.” If the original subdivision is vacated, turning the two lots back into one lot, the Lozanos’ land will decrease in value since “they can’t sell it for two single family residences .". . the use they contemplated when they bought it in 1978,” Mr. DeJarnette said. The county’s subdivision “ordinance was drawn to allow problems like this to be cor
90.4%