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 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
piece of property” in a subdivision created without review and approval by the county.
Mr. Miller also warned that the poor soils for septic fields may pose a health problem, noted Mr. Bird. "If there are health problems, then I don’t think we should approve it."
Addressing Mr. Miller's contention that the absence of county approval removes any building rights implied by approval and thus any hardship arising from strict application of the setback regulations. Zoning Administrator John McCarthy “regrettably" disagreed. By not regulating and restricting subdivision, the county tacitly gave its approval, Mr. McCarthy maintained. “Regrettably, that failing is the county’s.”
The board members were also unanimous in finding that approval of the variance would neither change the character of the neighborhood nor be detrimental to adjoining properties. But they split on whether the setback problem was of a recurring nature and thus correctable by an ordinance amendment.
Mr. Kramer maintained that it was and that the Board of Supervisors could have enacted an amendment but chose not to.
Amendment not practical
Mr. McCarthy countered that while recognizing the problem with setbacks does recur, the board could find no "reasonably practical” amendment to correct the situation. As Col. Ellis Bingham had suggested, the board could have applied the 1973 setback standards to Rappahannock Lakes, but the majority felt that would be an impractical “band-aid fix” since variances would still be necessary for building in many cases, Mr. McCarthy said.
And the board could have passed an amendment eliminating setbacks entirely in Rappahannock Lakes, he noted. But those and other options were thought to be unreasonable, and instead the board concluded that the only way to address the setback issue in Rappahannock Lakes is "individually by variance.” Mr. Kramer’s disagreement with that position amounts to an attempt to determine
73.2%