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 3 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
The BZA initially denied Mr. Hur’s application, finding that the conditions giving rise to the variance were of a general and recurring *<*y-"ire in Rappahannock Lakes and therefore should be addressed through an amendment to the zoning ordinance. But reviewing the alternatives, the Board of Supervisors was unable to come up with a “reasonably practical” amendment that would be “in the county’s best interests.”
The supervisors held that rezoning all of Rappahannock Lakes to village residential, which'has less stringent setback regulations, would violate Rappahannock's established zoning practice by creating a pocket of dense zoning in the middle of an agricultural area. And even as village residential, lots in Rappahannock Lakes would need variances to setback regulations, they noted.
As to establishing a new non-conforming subdivision category, the supervisors felt this approach failed to take into account the variations between Rappahannock Lakes and others of the county’s pre-ordinance developments which would be eligible for rezoning to that same category.
So Mr. Hur was back before the BZA last Wednesday with a reapplication for variances to side and front setbacks.
‘A mistake to begin with’
“This subdivision was a mistake to begin with,” said Newbill Miller, former Hampton District supervisor and planning commissioner. “With any regulations at all, this subdivision wouldn’t have gone in without public water or
60.2%