HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000016 Review Comments 2000-07-18 Minutes of Board of Zoning Appeals Page 15 July 18, 2000
APPROVED:
The variance was approved (5:0) subject to the conditions of the staff report as amended.
1) This variance is for the facility described in this file only. Any modification will require
new variance review.
2) A tree conservation plan identifying all trees that have a diameter of six (6) inches or
greater (measured at six (6) inches above ground) within 25 feet of the proposed tower
site shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit
application for the tower. The plan should note any trees to be removed to make space
for the tower and its appurtenances including the driveway.
3) The cutting of trees within 75 feet of the new tower shall be limited to dead trees and
trees of less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six (6) inches above ground,
except those trees identified on the plans as necessary for the establishment of the
towers;
4) Removal of the remaining trees or their limbs shown on either plan is prohibited
unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public
utility.
Ms. Long asked for a clarification on the issue of the18 foot variance versus 20 foot
variance.
Mr. Kennedy stated that they could only grant a 55 foot variance.
Ms. Sprinkle stated that the Board could not grant more of a variance than was legally
advertised.
Ms. Long stated that they would take whatever variance the Board would give, but that
they would have to come back for the additional variance.
C. VA-2000-16 Rodger & Sue Belew (owners/applicants)
STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd
STAFF REPORT VA-2000-16
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roger and Sue Belew
Minutes of Board of Zoning Appeals Page 16 July 18, 2000
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 122/26
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 0.587
LOCATION: 6627 Blenheim Road is located on the east side of Route
795, approximately 3/10 mile south of the intersection with
Route 713.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from
Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75 foot front setback. In
order to construct an 8' wide porch on the front of the dwelling, a front setback
reduction from 75 feet to 32 feet is needed.
RELEVANT HISTORY: None
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
This 0.587 acre parcel contains a dwelling with a rear deck and a detached 720 square
foot two bay garage located approximately 16 feet north of the dwelling. The southeast
corner of the dwelling encroaches 1.3 feet into the 25 foot side setback. The dwelling
encroaches 34.8 feet into the 75 foot front setback.
With these improvements, it is staff opinion that the owners now enjoy reasonable use
of this property. Approval of the request would be a convenience to owner. However,
there are additional factors the Board may choose to consider.
In 1976 when the house was constructed the required front setback was 30 feet. The
house was located 40.2 feet from the right of way of Route 795. The proposed 8 foot
wide porch would meet that setback. The variance is occasioned by the 1980 increase
of the front setback to 75 feet in the rural area district.
Any improvement constructed on this parcel is constrained by its limited area of 0.587
acres. However, the applicant has options that meet the requirements of the ordinance.
While not the first choice of the applicant, it would be possible to build a porch on the
north side of the dwelling or to expand and/or cover the deck in the rear. The new non-
conforming section of the ordinance permits such expansions without variance.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows:
Hardship
Minutes of Board of Zoning Appeals Page 17 July 18, 2000
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
The house was built in the early seventies. Would like to have usable front porch at
front door.
Staff cannot identify any hardship as described in the Code of Virginia relating to
granting a variance. As discussed, since reasonable use already exists, there is no
undue hardship
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
No other houses in the area would be affected by the addition of a porch.
Staff finds this situation is unique in the immediate vicinity in that the parcel is non-
conforming to lot size, is non-conforming to front setback and is non-conforming to side
setback. However, since the property enjoys reasonable use, no undue hardship has
been identified and therefore staff finds nothing unique on this property regarding the
requirement to meet the 75 foot front setback. Within a one half-mile radius, with one
possible exception, the dwellings meet the 75 foot front setback.
The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by
other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
Authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or
to the character of the district.
No effect on neighboring residences. (surrounded by large farms and my property)
Staff agrees that the addition of this proposed porch will not change the character of the
district.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will
Minutes of Board of Zoning Appeals Page 18 July 18, 2000
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district
will not be changed by the granting of the variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, if
the Board finds cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition:
This variance is for the expansion described in this file only. Any further expansion will
require amendment to this variance.
SPEAKER(S) FOR VARIANCE:
Roger Belew, property owner, stated that they wanted to build a porch in place of the
existing stoop. He pointed out that this was something that they would have done a long
time ago, but unfortunately the money situation with putting their children through college
prevented it. The house needs a new roof and they want to incorporate the new porch at
the same time. He asked that the Board consider the request because they only need 4
additional feet from the existing porch. This would be a convenience for them, but would
not cause any problems to the area and would make the house look better from the road.
Mr. Kennedy stated that staff seems to think that it is possible to build the deck on the
other side of the building. He asked why they could not do that?
Mr. Belew stated that if they put the porch on the other end of the house where there was
room, it would put it in between the house and the garage. That would narrow that
section down which would make it difficult to get into the garage due to the passage door
on that side. A new door would have to be put in on that end of the house to access the
porch. Since the door is already on the front it makes more sense to build the porch on
the front than to go to the expense of putting in a new door and incorporating the old door
into the house another way. He pointed out that the existing porch was 4 foot wide and
they would like to add 4 feet to make an 8 foot porch.
Mr. Cogan asked if the porch could go on the back of house?
Mr. Belew stated it would take away the use of the open deck and they would prefer not
to. The open deck was used for cookouts, entertaining friends and sunbathing. He
stated that the adjacent neighbors were present.
Dennis King, a neighbor directly across Blenheim Road, stated that he represented two
Minutes of Board of Zoning Appeals Page 19 July 18, 2000
other adjacent property owners. They were Mr. and Mrs. John Currier and Mr. and Mrs.
Peter Sherwin. He pointed out that the Belews have displayed great pride in their
residence. The porch would enhance the visual integrity of the area. All of his neighbors
feel the same and support the variance. Even though he has options, this proposal would
be aesthetically more pleasing and would represent a tremendous safety issue as well.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED,
AND THE MATTER WAS BEFORE THE BOARD.
Mr. Cogan stated that they had just changed the ordinance. The deck could go on the
side or rear without a variance.
Mr. Kennedy pointed out that it was a very small lot.
MOTION:
Mr. Bailey moved for approval of the variance with the stipulation that they cannot go
beyond 4 feet. He stated that a hardship existed due to the size of his family.
Mr. Bass stated that he had problems with finding a hardship.
SECONDED:
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion.
ROLE: Mr. Bass — No
Mr. Bailey - Aye
Mr. Rinehart - Aye
Mr. Cogan - No
Mr. Kennedy — No, because cannot find any hardship even though it was
just a small change in what is there.
DENIED:
The variance was denied (3:2) to reduce the front yard setback from 75 to 32 feet.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he needed to delay an appointment, and left the meeting at 3:45
p.m. to make a call.
Mr. Rinehart returned at 3:47 p.m.
STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd
PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000
STAFF REPORT VA-2000-16
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roger and Sue Belew
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 122/26
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 0.587
LOCATION: 6627 Blenheim Road is located on the east side of Route
795, approximately 3/10 mile south of the intersection with
Route 713.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from
Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75 foot front setback. In
order to construct an 8' wide porch on the front of the dwelling, a front setback reduction
from 75 feet to 32 feet is needed.
RELEVANT HISTORY: None
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
This 0.587 acre parcel contains a dwelling with a rear deck and a detached 720 square
foot two bay garage located approximately 16 feet north of the dwelling. The southeast
corner of the dwelling encroaches 1 .3 feet into the 25 foot side setback. The dwelling
encroaches 34.8 feet into the 75 foot front setback.
With these improvements, it is staff opinion that the owners now enjoy reasonable use
of this property. Approval of the request would be a convenience to owner. However,
there are additional factors the Board may choose to consider.
In 1976 when the house was constructed the required front setback was 30 feet. The
house was located 40.2 feet from the right of way of Route 795. The proposed 8 foot
wide porch would meet that setback. The variance is occasioned by the 1980 increase
of the front setback to 75 feet in the rural area district.
Any improvement constructed on this parcel is constrained by its limited area of 0.587
acres. However, the applicant has options that meet the requirements of the ordinance.
While not the first choice of the applicant, it would be possible to build a porch on the
north side of the dwelling or to expand and/or cover the deck in the rear. The new non-
conforming section of the ordinance permits such expansions without variance.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows:
I IDEPT1Bwlding&Zoning\Staff ReportslVA-2000-16 Belew.doc.doc
•
Variance Report, VA 2000-16 2 July 18, 2000
Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
The house was built in the early seventies. Would like to have usable front porch at front
door.
Staff cannot identify any hardship as described in the Code of Virginia relating to
granting a variance. As discussed, since reasonable use already exists, there is no
undue hardship
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
No other houses in the area that would be affected by the addition of a porch.
Staff finds this situation is unique in the immediate vicinity in that the parcel is non-
conforming to lot size, is non-conforming to front setback and is non-conforming to side
setback. However, since the property enjoys reasonable use, no undue hardship has
been identified and therefore staff finds nothing unique on this property regarding the
requirement to meet the 75 foot front setback. Within a one half-mile radius, with one
possible exception, the dwellings meet the 75 foot front setback.
The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared
generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
Authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or
to the character of the district.
No effect on neighboring residences. (surrounded by large farms and my property)
Staff agrees that the addition of this proposed porch will not change the character of the
district.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such
variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that
Variance Report, VA 2000-16 3 July 18, 2000
the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the
variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, if
the Board finds cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition:
This variance is for the expansion described in this file only. Any further
expansion will require amendment to this variance.
STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd
PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000
STAFF REPORT VA-2000-16
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roger and Sue Belew
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 122/26
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 0.587
LOCATION: 6627 Blenheim Road is located on the east side of Route
795, approximately 3/10 mile south of the intersection with
Route 713.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from
Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75 foot front setback. In
order to construct an 8' wide porch on the front of the dwelling, a front setback reduction
from 75 feet to 32 feet is needed.
RELEVANT HISTORY: None
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
This 0.587 acre parcel contains a dwelling with a rear deck and a detached two bay
garage located approximately 16 feet north of the dwelling. The southeast corner of the
dwelling encroaches 1.3 feet into the 25 foot side setback. The dwelling encroaches
34.8 feet into the 75 foot front setback.
Small lot limits possibility of expansion.
New nonconforming section would permit expansion of dwelling toward the garage
Could obtain porch by covering the rear deck or by expansion towards garage.
Residence on Parcel 27 is 88 feet from the center of the road. If the road is centered in
a 30 prescriptive easement, then that dwelling encroaches 2 feet into its front yard.
Other dwellings in the vicinity meet the front setback of 75 feet. No plat in Real Estate
files.
Does it matter if garage is also in setback?
This will have minimal impact on adjacent properties.
Owners enjoy reasonable use of property. Approval of request would be a convenience
to owner.
3OX2A — 720 � ' . l°i(��
tieleta , A4A 1174p L ,cam ceAt
Variance Report, VA 2000-05 2 April 4, 2000
STAFF ANALYSIS:
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows:
Hardship
The applicant comments that the variance is necessary:
The house was built in early seventies. Would like to have usable front porch at front
door.
Staff cannot identify any hardship as described in the Code of Virginia relating to
granting a variance. As discussed, since reasonable use already exists, there is no
undue hardship
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the zoning district and in
the same vicinity. No other houses in the area that would be affected by addition of
Staff finds this situation is unique in the immediate vicinity in that the parcel is non-
conforming to lost sizer isr oc► c or ing to front setback and is non-conforming to side
setback. Howeve, slncerno' undue hardship has been identified, staff finds nothing
unique in the setback.
*****Check out Collier to determine if encroaching in front- C
The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared
generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
C IFilesIADOCSIVA-00-16 Below Report doc
Variance Report, VA 2000-05 3 April 4, 2000
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
Authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or
to the character of the district.
No effect on neighboring residences. (surrounded by large farms and my property)
Staff opinion:
Staff agrees that the addition of this proposed porch will not change the character of the
district.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such
variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that
the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the
variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, if
the Board finds cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition:
This variance is for the expansion described in this file only. Any further
expansion will require amendment to this variance.
C:IFilesIADOCSIVA-00-16 Belew Report doc
r �
c\k\
•
J
. .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
•
4.10.3.1 EXCEPTIONS—EXCLUDED FROM APPLICATION
The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural
museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings,residential chimneys, spires, flag poles,
monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack,water tank, radio or television antenna
or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no
such structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure;
and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a
residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures
now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements.(Amended 12-20-89)
4.10.3.2 EXCEPTIONS—LIMITED
Towers, gables, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, similar structures and necessary mechanical
appurtenances may be erected on a building to a height twenty (20) percent greater than the limit
established for the district in which the building is located, provided that no such exception shall
be used for sleeping or housekeeping purposes or for any commercial or industrial purpose; and
provided further that access by the general public to any such area shall be expressly prohibited.
4.10.3.3 PARAPET WALLS,CORNICES,ETC.
A parapet wall, cornice or similar projection may exceed the height limit established for the
district by no more than four(4)feet. (Amended 12-16-81;9-9-92)
•
4.10.3.4 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Except as permitted by the provisions of section 4.10.3.1, no accessory building in a residential
district shall exceed a height of twenty-four (24) feet. In no case shall a parking structure, other
than a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade, be deemed to be accessory to
any use in any residential district (Amended 11-7-84)
4.11 USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED IN REQUIRED YARDS
The following uses and structures shall be permitted in required yards, subject to the limitations
established.
4.11.1 COVERED PORCHES, BALCONIES,CHIMNEYS AND LIKE FEATURES
Covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like architectural features may project not more
than four(4) feet into any required yard; provided that no such feature shall be located closer than
six (6) feet to any lot line. (Amended 9-9-92)
4.11.2 STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS
No portion of any accessory structure shall be permitted in any required yard; except as herein
expressly provided. (Amended 3-18-81)
18-4-14
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
4.11.2.1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
If no utility or drainage easements or other easements are adversely affected, accessory structures
or portions thereof may be erected no closer than six (6) feet to adjacent lot lines in the case of
detached structures, or to a common wall m the case of attached structures; provided further that
no such structure shall be located within any yard required by section 4.6.3. (Addition 3-18-81)
(Amended 1-1-83)
4.11.2.2 PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS
Public telephone booths may be located within required yards, but no closer to any street than the
existing rightof-way line or right-of-way reservation line,provided that:
a. Such booths shall be equipped for emergency service to the public without prior payment;
b. The location of every booth shall be determined by the zoning administrator to ensure that the
same will not adversely affect the safety of the adjacent highway;
c. Every such booth shall be subject to relocation at the expense of the owner, whenever such
relocation shall be determined by the zoning administrator to be reasonably necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare or whenever the same shall be necessary to
accommodate the widening of the adjacent highway. (Addition 3-18-81)
4.11.2.3 FENCES, MAILBOXES,AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES
Fences, free-standing mail and/or newspaper boxes, signs advertising sale or rent of the property,
and shelters for school children traveling to and from school shall be permitted in all districts and
shall be exempt from all setback and yard requirements except as otherwise provided m section
4.4. For the purposes of this section, the term "fence" shall be deemed to include free-standing
walls enclosing yards and other uncovered areas. (Addition 3-18-81)
4.11.3 REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS(Added 1-1-83)
4 11.3 1 Minimum building separation and side yards for main structures shall be reduced in accordance
with applicable distract regulations in a particular case under the following circumstances:
a. Such structures are located within a four (4) mile radius of a responding fire station and in an
area where available fire flows are adequate by Insurance Service Offices standards to permit
such reduction; or
b. All such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in
accordance with Table 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic
Building Code 1984 Edition, or its equivalent in the current edition of BOCA Basic Building
Code;or(Amended 10-15-86)
c. In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee
as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this section inclusive but not
limited to deed restriction, disclosure, and other such instruments and the recordation of the
same in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county. (Added 1-1- 83)
4.11.3.2 In the case of reduction as provided in section 4.11.3.1, the following additional regulations shall
apply:
18-4-15
W HI TE OAK
90. 4' X \. S 2 50 40 , 30" E
223 . 93 ' POST
9 3 4'
• • / u-)
rn 0
-Z. DRAIN FIELD •
N
N. O
c,a 0. 587 AC. 0
D B 152 - 1 5 3 / st/
9 7 7' 97.1'
98.t4 42
O— G� I'
VI
t� • • - \ ONE STORY
CRAWL SPACE 24I
/ !
WI:
FLOOR 101 I '
I'
9,9.�
I 9 9 0 98.9
I
y
/
'GRAVEL ' 7c5 --r
i
DRIVE i
. A(1/ . I
40 2
i
r �
• t9906 'PLRT SHOWING TRX MRP ' 22 r�RRCEL 2E 950 j� '
THE H . C . EELEA, I PETY N 28° 52' 00" W ; 1000 1
I
1
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT/ RLBEM , -LLJNTY/ VIRGINIR
SCRLE I INCH = 20 FEET J
MAY 27/ 1976 ��� '), .� 7 s ROUTE 7 9 5 E X H I r S •
!... U T E
RDBERT L LU
M
M _ ; z. PRESENTED TO 7
LAN) PLRNNING - SURVEYING ti r;, ii ` a4n
\ '' . :.1.37. :.- , Lkbaft
PRLMYRR/ VIRGIN'R �`''�� �4�v �`' ''
•
iii5. E
_
I I , _fi�� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Z..
" € '," •.., '' .
e•.6.; •
: •
ke • ' .
• .
• .
- 0 • i
•
A
. ,. ii: . ",.. •
: ..- .
" . * aii I
- •
..._
• . ..10... ".i i 1...... ..,
,- - '
. _
ier. 10_,A.
- --ow
..•......
4.6••••.- -
ii imposur••••
..t,
• „-.410111111100 -..pon•
ari„,.., ,-'"1-" ' ,,.• - -..." -,4,ilataii.
. ..
7/17/00
VA., 10 OCJI0 eimp t
400'
.,0 ; ( VA oo- 1�
i 20 .
+ )71..1"a
2ta =
,
23 \ =1 /
\\*/r\/
.2 \ 2 4 `. 2'
116
tts ii \
• il
164/ 0
s.
s
/ ' 5. 011 .
2 . ft,
•
N • ... .........L. .............i.
. NI /N
k A
i \
s
i
( illp0 3 A
<[%:'‘..0 ''.. .'.' ..'.''.'..."t 4
¶, 6 ). ` •
� .
4! !V\ , .
•
3i
2 ,.lAji 1
( .-•- • -I,Air
47.
' A\ .
/ iriAr av A/
th
' -1- lir" '
1 -1 '' . iligim
0/
Z ' 9
a N >
IDI'RY� 1/J-e -
Z-xf- s ? S to op
y 1, 1 -t
Le -Pt Z--JevLtion I � ? '�- (L R t-. � ?,5—
/� op O's, p- d Ro r p- /?
EXHIBITS
PRESENTED TO & ?-A
60
CUJNTY OF ALBEMARLE
9FLEW A LBEM ARLE COUNTY _
113 VA000%w I
E X H BIT
\: RESENTED TO
♦ ♦ � �,¢�1A,11M ��1
I /
I \ � ♦ : O--IBA
r � l \♦ 111111�111 18
♦ 111/111 � h
13
\ . 14
15 /
\ loomos 180
\
j � /
........
� 13A1
IBB
30 7 2'
/ I t 178
Is 20
IA / 17A
� I � 21A
23
♦♦ Rt. 71 3
♦
24 21
F „' �♦ � {l9 ?S��
12 B N i 12E 12CI (2G2
12 D i / ?Sq
--
/ \12E1 27
20 / \I2G
\ N
\
121 \\\\ 12F > 1211 12C �i 123
2G / 2A / / ♦ / 9
3 /A 12 K %/• % • 1
/ 12
•
12 A
• 'I /i
• 4 A e •AV
• 31
I
• ♦♦
•ICI,,/ , , ■
♦♦♦ ♦♦ !l�1111111111111111q ■ ff
1,Ii
♦♦ ♦•' ■ 32 A 1
VA t
•/ \■ 0
i� 10 \■ i 33_ a %
� \' { ;; 33 •
• 0 "` FA /
34
♦5 \ !• \ 9 I1 /
PN
:: BAlk
oe • / —
• • M
•-4
6
♦ / a°
• e / •
r3E3-13 O
* • 0 10
TNA
A IN
130 **** ENTRANCE CORRIDQR
SCALE IN FEET •//fir
600 0 600 1200 1600 0400 SECTION
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT 122
*1* AGRICULTURAL 9 FORESTAL DISTRICTS _