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 4 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
<1 * « •* V ^
Rezoning questions
There are many times when we don’t envy the members of the county’s Board of Supervisors, and this month is one of those times.
On Monday, they will hear a request from Emiel and Lynda Smet for a rezoning of their property in Amissville. The Smets plan to subdivide their 120-acre parcel, and would like the property rezoned from Agricultural to Rural Residential. The result would be a current minimum 25-acre lot size reduced to five acres.
In hopes of making the request more appealing, the Smets have offered limitations on the subdivision, including a minimum lot size of 10 acres, a minimum house size, as well as requirements for screening and review of building plans.
The county Planning Commission, after protracted debate about the request, recommended that the board deny the application. The members cited the large amount of residentially zoned property in the area, as well as its location , on the fringes of the Amissville village.
We can see merit in the arguments on bqth sides. In the , Smets’ defense, the county’s Comprehensive Plan calls for growth to be concentrated around the villages. This parcel, which lies within a mile of U.S. 211, is in the village area, if not strictly within the village district. The covenants offered along with the request would appear to ensure the development of an appealing and attractive subdivision.
On the other side, there is some merit that the planned Windemeer Estates would not serve the needs of the county’s residents. With a minimum size of 2,500 square feet on 10 acre lots, the price would be far beyond the reach of those county residents who are most anxiously seeking homes — young couples and families just starting out.
As the parcel is now zoned, it creates a transition from two-acre residential zoning on its north side to Agricultural zoning in the remainder of the parcel. If the rezoning is approved, the extension of R-5 zoning into the country surrounding the village may set a precedent.
It would be difficult, the planners argued, to refuse the next person who wishes to rezone a similar parcel in the area. And that person might not be willing to proffer limits on the subdivision as Mr. Smet has done.
This case will not be the last of its kind to confront the supervisors. As development expands out from the counties around Washington, D.C., the county’s officials are going to be faced with many more such requests.
We have no clear answer as to the correct decision, and we think that is best left to the county’s five supervisors. We can offer only support for them in their deliberations, and understanding for the conflicting needs and desires they face.
96.2%