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 16 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
and restrict their use of the land.’’
Even if owners don’t intend to build houses on the substandard parcels, they'll lose because the county’s restrictions will reduce the value of the lots should they choose to sell, the Jackson District supervisor added.
Asking for a legal opinion from the Commonwealth’s Attorney, Col. Bingham maintained that by correcting the setback problems with variances, the county would be “sowing the seeds of inconsistency.”
Mr. Luke advised that the board could amend the zoning ordinance to include a new category for non-conforming subdivisions and specify that lots would “have to comply with existing setbacks where they could.” Where that was impossible, the lot owner would be allowed to build — without a variance — provided the percentage of the parcel covered by the structure did not exceed the average for the subdivision, he explained, adding that the supervisors would decide which of the county’s old substandard subdivisions would be rezoned to the non-conforming category.
"But if we want to be consistent, how can we say one subdivision goes in this new category and another doesn't?" asked Supervisor Massie.
“The zoning ordinance has had a legal opinion rendered on it already, and the ordinance provides for a variance to be issued,” Supervisor Lane pointed out. The snag, as far as Mr. Hur’s application is concerned, came because the BZA could not make its findings until it had a decision from the Board of Supervisors on whether a general regulation could be promulgated, Mr. Lane added. “We should humbly and carefully hand this back to the BZA with the additional information for them to consider, and no one’s rights will be restricted.”
To Col. Bingham’s repeated request for a legal opinion, Mr. Massie noted that the supervisors are considering an ordinance amendment, which couldn’t be enacted at Monday’s meeting since state law requires zoning ordinance amendments be referred to the planning commission for advertised public hearing and recommendation before the supervisors act following a duly advertised public hearing of their own.
“There's no question he can build a house there. We only need to figure out how to say ‘yes.’ This is a mechanical problem, not a legal question,” Mr. Lane contended, finding consensus among his fellow board members on that point.
“We’ve gotten sidetracked,” said Mr. Lane, as the board took up the issue anew following a half-hour break. “We’ve been asked if we’ll amend the zoning ordinance for this specific case and the answer is ‘no.’ ”
“It’s not in the best interests of the county to change the ordinance to fit this particular instance,” agreed Chairman Hubert Gilkey.
With Col. Bingham opposed, the majority affirmed that the board finds no zoning ordinance amendment will redress the problem of setback compliance in the non-forming lots of the Rappahannock Lakes subdivision.
83.0%