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 2 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
Controlling growth
THE DEBATE ABOUT GROWTH which cropped up at the June meeting of the Rappahannock Board of Supervisors developed interesting and useful points on both sides — and we make this appraisal in no attempt to agree with both sides.
But it happens that we do agree with Supervisors Wood and Foster and their warning, against expanding the county’s cbureauracy (if that word is not too grand for the subject) unnecessarily. It is indeed easy for a county to take on more people than it needs, and every addition, however small, should be viewed with the utmost skepticism.
On the other hand, Chairman Miller and Attorney Davis were equally correct in their warning that development has a way of getting out of hand before you know it. And, as experiences in adjoining counties have shown, that can be far more expensive in the long run — not only in terms of the tax rate, but in terms of damage to a cherished quality of life, as well.
aA THOUGHT THAT OCCURED in listening to the Supervisors debate might be useful.
The state will require establishment of local building inspection offices come September, to administer a statewide, uniform building code.
Would it be possible to combine the office of building inspector and zoning administrator, to create a full-time position that could serve the double purpose of meeting state requirements, and of providing Rappahannock with the type of follow-through protection that is clearly needed if development is to be controlled and directed in a beneficial manner?
We certainly don’t profess to any legal uisight on this, but it might serve as a useful point to raise when the debate — or, er, discussion — is resumed at the Board’s July meeting. □ -
95.2%