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 6 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
serve a single family home. Remember the Conservation Zone is the steepest part of our county.
The Professional Service required in the proposed ordinance to build a house and road were estimated at the Public Hearing to increase the costs to the home builder $3,500-$9,000. I believe this estimate is low especially if the Type II Road is required. This cost increase will prevent many low to moderate income people from building on Conservation Zone lots, even those lots they already own.
More agricultural lands will be used for houses because of the cost increase for houses in the Conservation Zone, especially land zoned both Agriculture and Conservation. Building costs will be cheaper in the Agriculture Zone. This takes land out of agricultural production.
The current zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of SO acres for new subdivisions in the Conservation Zone. If the 50 acres lot is too level and cannot comply with (F) #6 in the proposed amendments no house can be built on the 50 acre lot.
The sides of our mountains are more visible and more beautiful than the tops of the ridges. This proposal will place houses on mountain sides with clear cut areas for the house and drain field. The road requirements will increase the water run off (erosion) and the house location may place drain fields on less suitable soils for the proper filtration of the waste water.
I do not favor houses on tops of our mountains. My motive is very simple. The proposed amendments are not good for Rappahannock and will adversely effect public support for the planning process. My family and I own one property in the Conservation District and it is under contract to sell. I am no longer a Real Estate Broker. I have no conflicts of interest with the proposed amendments.
96.8%