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 18 · column 6 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Lawsuit
Continued from page 1
part of a 130-acre tract owned by Charles K. Estes. In February 1975, f Zoning Administrator Fanning Baumgardner approved the division of 60.65 acres from that tract into three parcels: an 8.65-acre lot and two 26-acre lots. Mr. Estes conveyed the two larger lots to Lindgren Land Incorporated in June 1976, and the following year Oscar Lindgren resubdivided what is now the Lozano property into two 12.8753-acre lots, the division approved by Zoning Administrator Evan McNear. The two lots were sold to the Lozanos in June 1978, and have been held by them since in what is essentially a single tract, with no buildings or other improvements on either piece, according to the complaint filed by the Halls.
In granting exceptions for the Lozano subdivision earlier this month, the supervisors agreed that strict application of the ordinance’s provisions would work a hardship. The petition filed by the Halls’ attorney last week maintains that hardship, as grounds for an exception, must relate to the land itself. “Any hardship that might exist resulted solely from ignorant or deliberate disregard of the existing land use ordinances,” Mr. Konick argues. Asking the court to nullify the board’s action, he says that granting the exception to the prohibition against lots of less than 25 acres on less than 50-foot rights-of-way “violates and destroys the purpose, intent and specific standards” of the county’s subdivision ordinance. Further, he maintains that the exceptions “adversely affect the Halls’ comfort and privacy” and will cause irreparable damage to the aquatic fish ponds on their property.
The Halls and other Rappahannock County landowners “have a right to rely upon the county board and its agents” to enforce the subdivision ordinance in a “consistent and rational manner ... to protect the public interest,” Mr. Konick writes. The board also has a duty to adequately supervise its agents to whom enforcement duties are delegated and to correct those acts which violate the subdivision ordinance, the attorney maintains in the complaint. Rappahannock’s supervisors have “utterly and consistently failed in the performance of these duties,” Mr. Konick argues. •
-i*i
97.2%