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
In a three-page memo dated j Feb. 26, Zoning Administrator j John McCarthy takes the Rappahannock Lakes case to the Board , of Supervisors, repeating the arguments for a variance which were rejected — but for different reasons — by the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Rappahannock Lakes, a collection of lots one-quarter to onehalf acre subdivided in the late i 1950s, became non-conforming when the county adopted its 1973 zoning ordinance. Its designation as R-l, or Residential Village, i prohibited further subdivision I due to its minimum lot size of one acre. Most properties could meet the 1973 requirements for 20-foot side setback, 50-foot rear setback. and 75-foot front setback in R-l. But with the adoption of the I960 zoning ordinance, Rappahannock Lakes was rezoned RR5 (Rural Residential with a density of one dwelling unit per five acres), increasing the sideyard setbacks to 50 feet. Now, most properties can't meet all the setI back regulations. Mr. McCarthy sees three ways out of the difficulties pre; sented by John Hur, the contract buyer for one of Rappahannock Lakes' now-unbuildable lots. | Two are legislative, as suggested by the BZA when it referred the \ issue to the supervisors to re1 view for the formation of a geneval regulation to address the difficulties presented by Mr. Mur's application, and the others ! which will likely follow. The first is rezoning the enj
tire subdivision to Residential Village or Residential 2. But Mr. ; McCarthy holds that putting Rappahannock Lakes in a more dense zoning category is “almost ! completely unacceptable and not in keeping with proper zoning ! practice ... It is clearly not a vil! lage area nor is it intended to be j an area where new growth and
65.1%