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 6 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
entitled to rely on enforcement of subdivision regulations which preclude both resubdivision of land and subdivision of lots less than 25 acres on rights-of-way less than 50 feet. When they learned of the Lozanos’ intentions to sell one 12-acre lot for construction of a church, they first opposed issuance of the necessary special use permit. When the permit was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, they filed suit, petitioning the court to overturn the BZA’s decision.
But Circuit Court Judge Shore Robertson ruled that the Halls had not exhausted their administrative remedies and directed them to ask the Board of Supervisors to vacate the contested 1977 subdivision plat. The supervisors refused.
Meanwhile, the Lozanos filed a request seeking special exceptions to the prohibition against smaller lot development on rights-of-way less than 50 feet and other requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Following a long executive session at their September board meeting, the supervisors voted unanimously to grant the exceptions. That vote led to the complaint filed by Mr. Konick last Thursday. (The Halls’ first suit is also still pending.)
Subdivision history
The property that lies at the center of the controversy was originally
Continued on page 18
88.4%