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 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
the proposed subdivision ordinance, at least until the people have an opportunity to re-evaluate the document after Monday’s revisions.
By consensus, the board agreed that the changes made Monday in response to Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke’s review were1 not substantive but rather technical revisions to bring the language into compliance with state enabling legislation.
Replying to the points raised by the opponents, Supervisor NewbiD Miller noted that the ordinance allows piece meal, random development through its provision for administrative approval of the first five lots subdivided from a parcel and through the exception for family subdivisions.
As to Mr. Johnson’s contention that portions are open to challenge, Mr. Miller acknowledged that enabling legislation doesn’t specifically state that a locality can consider transfer within a year of receipt of a lot created under the family exception as prima facie evidence of intent to circumvent the ordinance. “State law has a gray area. I admit that.” But enabling legislation prohibits the use of the family exception as a means of circumventing ordinance regulations, so Rappahannock’s addition only takes that prohibition to the next logical step, Mr. Miller maintained.
(In his earlier technical review, Mr. Luke advised that the Circuit Court is not bound to accept the transfer as prima facie evidence of intent to circumvent the ordinance. “But there’s nothing illegal about putting it in there,” the Commonwealth’s Attorney said.)
With no further discussion, the board voted unanimously to adopt the new subdivision ordinance.
90.7%