X hits on this document

Word document

At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Northampton, - page 10 / 36

85 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

10 / 36

condition which the Board could impose, motion was restated by Mr. Murray that the Board approve the subject petition in keeping with Planning Commission recommendation and staff report, allowing sales to the maximum extent for which there is provision in the zoning ordinance, with the following conditions:

1.  That the special use permit be non-transferable; and

2.  That the special use permit be valid for two years and subject to compliance review.

All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hughes and voted “yes.”  The motion was unanimously passed.

Chairman Walker called to order the following public hearing as follows:

(9)  Subdivision Text Amendment 08-02 NHCO:  The Northampton County Board of Supervisors, under a motion of intent, proposes to amend the Northampton County Subdivision Ordinance by adopting new text to be known as §156.013 Exception:  Where the subdivider can show that a provision of these standards in cases of unusual situations or when strict adherence to the general regulations would result in substantial injustice or unnecessary hardship, and where, because of topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site, in the opinion of the subdivision agent, a departure may be made without destroying the intent of such provision, the administrator may authorize an exception.  Any exception shall be authorized in writing and shall state the reasons why the exception was granted.  If an applicant is aggrieved by the subdivision agent’s decision, he may appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors.  Appeals of the subdivision agent’s decision for purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be to the Board of Supervisors and not the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).  If an applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Supervisors, he may appeal that decision to the Northampton County Circuit Court, as provided by the code of Virginia §15.2-2259.

The Chairman asked if there were any present desiring to speak.   

Ms. Benson indicated that the Planning Commission was recommending approval of substitute language as proposed by staff, noting that while staff believes that there are circumstances when the granting of an exception would be reasonable, staff is concerned that the proposed amendment does not offer any guidance to the subdivision agent as to what constitutes an “unusual situation,” “substantial injustice,” or “unnecessary hardship,” nor does it provide

10

Document info
Document views85
Page views85
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 20:41:24 UTC 2016
Pages36
Paragraphs340
Words7345

Comments