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 1 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved

The clipping this text was read from
The clipping this text was read from

Hensley

application

approved

By Jan LaValley

Rappahannock News Staff Writer

An application by Brenda L. Hensley to construct a separate dwelling on her property near Rock Mills for a family apartment was approved by the Rappahannock Planning Commission last week.

The application was sent forward to the County Board of Zoning Appeals, which meets Thursday at 7:30 p.m. in the courthouse. The commission based its approval on the County Code saying “the application is allowable as is applied for.” They also said Hensley must have VDOH approval and further requested that she put a restriction on her deed to forbid “any future subdivision of the property.”

The property is now 5.67 acres. A neighbor, Elizabeth Hilscher addressed the commission with concerns about the density of homes in that area. “I had thought the county was trying to keep it down. This was originally a 39 acre parcel which was divided up among family members and is now in fivej^arcels. Now there is an application to put anotfier dwelling on the 5.6 acre parcel. That would result in four dwellings on these parcels.” She also said ijhe was concerned about how it would affect the value of her property and traffic in the area.

Ajidy Platt, who lives on Blue Grass Lane off Rock Mills Road, said “I think the bailiwick of the planning commission extends far beyond the ‘applications’ of the code... You’re looking at high density development in an area zoned for low density development... You should strongly urge the BZA that this petition not be approved.”

The commission — after discussing the issues of density, what constitutes a family apartment, well and septic approval, distance from the road, distance from the other dwelling and possible future use of the property — decided the application did meet with code requirements and they had no reason to deny it.

The commission also approved the changes in

See PLANNING, Page A6

r

93.5%