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 4 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
Rezoning hinges
on proffer
By LOU HATTER
Rappahannock News Staff Writer , Virginia Cloud’s request for a rezoning won the approval of the county's Planning Commission, but only with stipulations which would limit the parcel’s density.
Mrs. Cloud is the contract buyer of a id-acre parcel on the north side of U.S. 211 about a mile west of Sperrvville. The land is zoned agricultural, which limits its building density to one dwelling per 25 acres.
She applied for a rezoning to R-5, a residential classification which allows one home on each five acres. Mrs. Cloud also submitted a proffer which would have limited the number of subdivided lots to three, each not less than five acres.
County Administrator John McCarthy told the planners that the “core decision” on the application was whether R-5 zoning should be extended out from the village of Sperryville. He added that his opinion was that a density of one dwelling per five acres “is too dense in this transition area,” but that if the density were reduced somewhat, it w’ould be an acceptable compromise.
In presenting the application, Mr. McCarthy noted that the parcel presently has a special use permit for a travel-trailer campground with up to 36 sites. That permit, which was issued in 1973 and renewed in 1980, has never been used. If the rezoning is granted, the special use permit for the campground would be revoked by that action.
Mr. McCarthy told the planners that the parcel is served by two rights-of-way, one a deeded right-of-way on the east side, the other a proscriptive, or traditional right-of-way, on the west side which also serves a number of other homes. He said his feeling was that the parcel should be served by the deeded right-of-way rather than the proscriptive easement.
Mr. McCarthy said that Mrs. Cloud was also inter-, ested in preserving the ability of the subdivided lots to be cut again, particularly through the family transfer process. That would lead to a total of six lots on the parcel.
He noted that Mrs. Cloud had voiced a preference for entering the property through the proscriptive easement on the west side, which already serves several homes nearby. “To throw three more lots onto that road is probably not the best idea," he told the planners.
And, Mr. McCarthy added, under state law the county cannot enforce any road standards onto lots created by family subdivisions. Therefore, the possible total of six lots could be created without any upgrade of the road serving the subdivision.
Several neighbors attended the hearing, including Beverly Atkins. “I’m not really in favor or against,” she told the planners. The road is there, . . . it’s been there for years. If the road comes in from Route 211, there
See PROFFER, p. 16
84.9%