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
Although owners of other unimproved lots in Rappahannock Lakes subdivision will also have difficulties in building to meet current setback regulations, “each lot will present a different set of circumstances and a different problem." thus making a variance — and not an ordinance amendment — the appropriate relief. he added. "And this subdivision was created to have a house on every lot. so I don't see how granting the variance could be a detriment to other property owners." BZA sees hardship, and more problems
Mr. McCarthy's arguments fell on more receptive ears at the BZA hearing the following week.
Sid (lottlieb wondered how the Planning Commission concluded that no hardship was involved. If the zoning regulations are strictly applied, “it means you can't build on that lot."
“How could that not be a hardship? It's a confiscation!" added Chairman Lee Bird.
“It was a conclusion I did not agree with," said Mr. McCarthy.
Peter Kramer even questioned whether the hardship would be wiped out if any of the owners of Lot 3 had owned mergeable lots on either side. “Whether somebody owns an adjoining lot, they're still individual lots, and should be considered individually . . . I’m not sure all people who own two lots are willing to sacrifice that second lot."
Moving on to the other conditions for granting a variance, Mr. Gottlieb noted. “If the situation (of short, narrow lots) is generally shared, that puts a heavy weight on this board. We’d be setting a precedent."
By its actions, the BZA doesn't set precedents, countered Mr. Kramer.
57.7%