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 2 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
ine supervisors were concerned that a family member who received such a parcel of land would not have been able to get a loan to build a house on the land if the bank could not force a sale in the event of a forclosure.
Hampton District representative Mike Massie, who also represents the Board of Supervisors on the Planning Commission, was the only supervisor to vote against eliminating this amendment. “Now you can sell it as soon as you get it,” he commented.
During the Planning Commission’s discussion of the amendments, Sharon Pierce mentioned that she had seen aqdvertisements for land for sale in Rappahannock pointing out that the land was eligible for family subdivisions. The planners felt that outside land speculators are taking advantage of the family subdivision provisions in the county’s zoning ordinance to subdivide in ways that would not ordinarily be allowed by the ordinance, and thus their recommendation for the restrictions.
Mr. Massie pointed out that when the family subdivision provisions were originally considered they were supposed to apply to owners of lots since 1973, but the ordinance has been interpreted to apply to lots of record in 1973. Thus the family subdivision provisions were originally intended to provide a way for people already in the county in 1973 to provide lots for members of their families but are being used by people buying land in the county now.
See FAMILY, p. A-8
93.9%