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
Comments few
on subdivision
rule revisions
By SHARON KILPATRICK
Rappahannock New* Staff Writer
Perhaps it whs rumors of the end of the war. Perhaps it was lack of interest, but the Town of Washington Planning Commission’s public hearing on the revised subdivision ordinance brought out only two members of the public Monday evening.
Diane Bruce arrived at the meeting with a copy of the proposed ordinance marked with questions she had about several provisions. Because her copy did not show which parts of the ordinance were proposed changes and which were carried over from the current ordinance, she questioned parts of the ordinance the town planners had not scrutinized carefully recently.
As a result of her questions, several small changes were recommended. For example she said her county clerk’s office could handle plats up to 18 by 24 inches, while the ordinance proposed limiting them to 11 by 18 inches. As a result the planners agreed to the larger size.
The only other town resident present at the meeting, Claybert Smoot, asked about the provision in the ordinance that says, “All remnents of lots below minimum size left over after subdivision of a tract must be added to adjacent lots, or otherwise disposed of rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels.”
He asked if this had any effect on his lot which is divided by the town county boundary and if there was any likelihood the boundary would be changed where it crosses his lot.
Town attorney Frank Reynolds said it did not apply to his lot since his lot cannot be divided. He also reminded Mr. Smoot that the’town and county set up a procedure to deal with so-called “straddle lots” divided by the town/county boundary; so that Mr. Smoot could apply to have
See PLANNERS, p. A-6
92.7%