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 3 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
By MARK SCOLFORO
Arundel Newspapers Staff Writer
The Culpeper Board of Supervisors tabled the revised South Wales Inc. development plan for 30 days July 5 after their attorney told them he was “unable to conclude that you have any sound basis for denial.”
The attorney, Roger Wiley of Charlottesville, outlined his argument that the litany of objections raised by citizens was not relevant to a subdivision request.
He said their complaints about the impact on the nearby agricultural district, on tax rates, the density and other probable effects of the development could not be defended effectively in court.
A lawsuit is pending in Culpeper Circuit Court over the supervisors’ vote to deny the first plan, a 379-lot proposal. South Wales Inc. officials have stated they want to build a 2,500-home, golf course community on their 2,519-acre tract eight miles from Warrenton at the intersection of Routes 211 and 229 on the Rappahannock River.
The developers have the “byright” zoning for the 343 houses they plan to build on the 679-acre parcel in the first phase of the project. The Culpeper Planning Commission, which voted to recommend the first proposal be turned down, has endorsed the second plan.
Therefore the role of the Board of Supervisors in Tuesday’s hearing was “ministerial,” argued Mr. Wiley: they were simply to assure that the plan abided by the subdivision ordinance, which he said he thinks it does.
Many of the objections raised by Culpeper and Fauquier citizens against the subdivision echoed comments made at the previous three Culpeper County government hearings at which South Wales has been considered. In fact, many of the same people made them.
Warrenton resident Scott Carter, speaking for the Rappahannock River Scenic River Advisory" Board, blasied Ihe developers for exaggerating by 440 percent at previous meetings the average low flow of the river.
He contends that the low flow, which the developers have stated is 1.2 million gallons a day, is in fact about 330,000 gallons daily, measured at a gauging station just upstream from the proposed development.
“If they want those rates from the Rappahannock River, they’ll have to add structures [such as a dam or holding lakes |,” said Mr. Carter. Because the Rappahannock is protected by its
91.9%