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 1 · column 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
so sorry !”
Under the proposed amendment, decisions on exceptions would be “totally arbitrary and capricious,” Mr. Konick argued, contending that those decisions won’t withstand legal challenges sure to ensue.
To get an exception now, the applicant must show hardship AND a peculiar topographical condition, Mr. Konick noted. Under the amendment, the applicant would only have to show hardship OR unusual circumstances, and neither is defined, he said.
“Why is this all of a sudden materializing before the Planning Commission?” the attorney asked. The proposed amendments are “an attempt to water down the provisions so somebody could be given an exception,” Mr. Konick charged, in apparent reference to a recent application for exceptions to the subdivision ordinance from Oscar and Stella Lozano.
(The Lozanos’ request was granted by the supervisors at their September meeting. The Planning Commission initially held a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed subdivision ordinance amendments last month, in time for the supervisors to hold their public hearing and adopt the amendments before acting on the Lozanos’ application. However, failure to comply with state law on public notice required the Planning Commission to hold its hearing again. (Since the law also requires that zoning matters be referred to the Commission for recommendation, the Board of Supervisors could not act on the amendments at the September meeting.)
Law should not be written “as a favor or to meet a specific case,” Mr. Konick said, adding that it's “utter nonsense” to claim that the ordinance amendments were proposed in order to bring Rappahannock into compliance with state law. Adopting the wording of the enabling legisContinued
on page 14
93.2%