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 4 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
THURSDAY. MARCH 3.1988
Editorial
The best of bad choices
The Board of Supervisors is faced with a request from the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals to attempt to remedy setback problems in Rappahannock Lakes by legislative action; that is, rezoning or making the area a “non-conforming subdivision.”
Zoning Administrator John McCarthy feels that the request for a variance to the county’s setback requirements —and similar others likely to face the BZA in the future — should be addressed by granting the variance requested by a contract buyer who wants to build a house on one of the subdivision’s small lots.
According to his interpretation, the county is obligated to allow a dwelling to be built on the lot, because by allowing the subdivision to be recorded it granted that right. That impression was reinforced by a letter to the then-owner from the county’s building inspector at the time, stating that the lot met the setback requirements then in effect.
Since then, the setbacks have been increased, making the lot unbuildable without a variance, which the contract owner has requested. The Planning Commission denied his request, and the BZA forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.
Mr. McCarthy has recommended that the supervisors not grant the request for legislative relief, for several reasons; it’s bad zoning, and it may, in fact, open more loopholes than it closes.
First, Rappahannock Lakes is a bad subdivision, one which w ould not be allowed today under the county’s ordinances. But, since it exists, the county must deal with it in the best way it can. Everyone seems agreed on those points.
But rezoning the area to a higher density, which would decrease the setback requirements, is a bad solution. It smacks of spot-zoning, since it doesn’t follow the county’s policy, outlined in its comprehensive plan, of concentrating high-density development in the villages. And, if that area is rezoned, what would be the reply to someone else who may come before the board later and request that another large adjacent parcel be zoned to the same density?
It would be a difficult request to deny, and one which a court might have problems with as well if the county were sued over the denial.
88.5%