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 14 · column 1 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Continued from page 1
lation is“silly,” he maintained. Enabling legislation says what the county can do; local ordinances should specify how, he contended.
As to the second amendment, Mr. Konick noted that he was the attorney in the case (again involving the contested Lozano subdivision) which brought the judge’s ruling and that Judge Robertson did not find Rappahannock’s right of appeal to be invalid. Instead, Mr. Konick said, the judge simply held that before appealing approval of a subdivision to the Circuit Court, a landowner must first appeal to the Board of Supervisors.
“Such a mystery”
“It’s such a mystery how these two items came up before the board,” Mr. Konick continued. “There are other provisions in Rappahannock’s subdivision ordinance that are invalid, out of step with state law,” and those provisions were brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission by former Zoning Administrator Evan McNear, Mr. Konick reported, specifically citing defects in the time limit for recording plats and the provision for family subdivisions. “They were never brought into accord with state law. . .The Planning Commission shouldn’t recommend laws to the supervisors to suit particular individuals,” he concluded.
Proposed by Luke
Phil Irwin, the only other speaker at Wednesday’s public hearing, said he didn’t object to adoption of the proposed amendments “if there’s no intent to weaken” the subdivision ordinance and if the amendments are being considered “strictly to conform with legislation and a judicial ruling. . .1 want the record to show why they were brought up in the first place, why they’re being considered at this time.”
The amendments were recommended by Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke, who also serves as legal advisor to the Board of Supervisors, replied Newbill Miller, the board’s representative on the Planning Commission.
The amendment on subdivision ordinance exceptions “exactly parallels enabling legislation,” Mr. Miller noted. Decisions by the supervisors on granting subdivision ordinance exceptions “won’t be done on the buddy system,” he maintained. “The
95.3%