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 4 · from the scan, no model involved
sion to rural residential with a density of one dwelling unit per five acres was an attempt to prevent that dense development pattern from intruding into farmland, according to Mr. McCarthy. To rezone now would negate that effort by encouraging development on properties adjacent to Rappahannock Lakes in the “ripple effect of zoning," he said.
Supervisor Ellis Bingham, in whose district the subdivision lies, agreed that the solution doesn’t lie with rezoning. Instead, he suggested an ordinance amendment to allow issuance of a building permit for lots created prior to 1973 — without a variance — provided that Health Department standards on wells and septic fields are satisfied. “A bundle of rights attaches to any parcel of real estate ... If we don’t allow a house to be built, that’s confiscation ... If a lot can’t meet the state’s regulations for sanitation, then it’s not usable for a dwelling, but that’s the state’s decision, and not a county directive.”
But such an amendment will encourage landowners to build on every lot and discourage merger to meet setback regulations, countered Supervisor Lane. “It would take away the incentive for voluntary compliance.”
“As a planner. I’m almost always uncomfortable with amending the zoning ordinance to fit a specific ' situation. It smacks of a quick fix,” said Mr. McCar- ’ thy. However, he reminded the supervisors that if;they decide against an ordinance amendment, the BZA still has the prerogative to deny Mr. Hur's vari-* , ance application, "At which point, I think, a property^* right has been taken away.”
The Board of Zoning Appeals is not a “discretionary body,” noted county attorney Peter Luke. “They don’t have any leeway . . . They can only compare the facts of the law with the application, and if they can’t make the finding that the situation is unique, they ’ may well vote not to grant the variance.”
»m\
See VARIANCE, p. 16 1
75.7%