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
The law is plain
Last week, Mike Massie, the Board of Supervisors’ representative on the county Planning Commission, stood alone in voting against an allowance for a small shortfall in the amount of steep land needed to satisfy the minimum lot size in a subdivision proposed near Ben Venue.
Mr. Massie pointed out, correctly in our view, that the regulation is plain. There is a 30 percent allowance for land of more than 25 percent slope in calculating the acreage necessary to make the minimum lot size — either you have the land, or you don’t.
Philip Mitchell didn’t, but the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision as platted anyway.
We think their action sets a dangerous precedent. It is especially so in view of the fact that, in the past year, members of the Planning Commission have expressed concern about the trend toward building on the county’s steeper slopes, within its conservation zones. These are fragile areas, with great potential for damage through erosion. Their protection should be extended to the widest latitude allowed by law — not reduced by the most narrow interpretation of the county’s ordinances.
When the next applicant comes in, with a slightly larger deficit of steep slope land, we think the Planning Commission is going to have a hard time recommending that application be denied after allowing Mr. Mitchell the difference on his land.
We hope that the Board of Supervisors will consider the precedent which would be set by granting the allowance. It is one which deserves a hard look before approval.
94.0%