Variance

Variance

Continued from Page 1

But when the county “tells somebody. 'You can't do anything with your land.’ that’s approaching confiscation (and) condemnation," Mr. Luke continued. Referring to recent decisions of the I'.S. Supreme Court on zoning issues, he warned the board that if a landowner is deprived. even temporarily, of the use of property. "You’re getting into a situation where you may be brought into court and be successfully sued.

"We have a moral and legal obligation to ensure (property owners) those rights we told them they had —the right to build a house on a lot (recorded by the county)." Supervisor Bingham emphasized. His proposed amendment, the Jackson Dostrict representative said, would send that message clearly to the BZA and Planning Commission.

"We’re not trying to restrict the man's property rights,” said Supervisor Lane. "By God. I’m anti-government when it comes to regulating our rights!" But the situation in Rappahannock Lakes is unique and therefore best adressed with a variance, he said. “An amendment to the zoning ordinance would have broad and far-reaching ramifications that may not serve the county’s best interests . . . We want to correct past mistakes and work towards achieving the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan . . . The future of this county's planning rests a lot on w hat we do today.”

Mr. Massie offered a motion essentially restating Mr. McCarthy’s position: that rezoning Rappahannock Lakes to another existing category with greater allowable density and less stringent setback regulations would violate the county’s stated policies and constitute illegal spot zoning while rezoning to a new category of non-conforming subdivision wouldn’t take into account other substandard developments elsewhere in the county. Therefore, his motion continued, the board sees no general regulation that could solve the variance problem in Rappahannock Lakes and still be in accord with the county’s comprehensive plan.

“I have to question the legality of that." said Supervisor Bingham. Insisting that the property owner has a right to build a dwelling on lot 3, he maintained that his suggested amendment satisfies that right. "There is a process . . .” .

“Through the approval of a variance," interjected Mr. McCarthy.

“The man has a right to build ahouse, regardless of what his neighbors think ... No one at this table disagrees that he has a right to build a house. But we have to find a way that lets him do it without throwing a wrench into the county’s ordinances and comprehensive plan," Mr. Lane said. While acknowledging that the board cannot direct the BZA to a decision, he added, “I’d like to see it done through a variance.”

Col. Bingham remained unconvinced. “The county did it,” he said, referring to the approval through recordation of the 70 lots in Rappahannock Lakes and similar little lots elsewhere in the county. “Where ever there’s a lot of little lots, there’s a lot of little people ... I don’t think we can sit here as a governing body

Home