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 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
outskirts of Flint Hill, close to a village rather than smack in the middle of acreage used for grazing or crops.
Interested citizens and members of the Rappahannock 'League for Environmental Protection have monitored Planning meetings since the Flint Hill subdivision first came before the Commission in February. They have voiced primary concern over the loss of farmland that the development will entail.
Where was this same concern last June when the Rappahannock Supervisors unanimously approved rezonings—with little or no public comment—for Wade Massie and Oscar Lindgren in action that removed over 200 acres from agricultural use? Both Lindgren’s and Massie’s subdivisions were 25-acre lot developments requiring fewer county services but the land involved was as effectively taken from farming use by 25-acre lots as by five-acre lots.
With this background, how can Goode’s rezoning request be denied on the basis of preserving agricultural land without the Supervisors incurring charges of acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner?
Disappearance of farm land and the accompanying changes it brings to the character of life in Rappahannock has to be stopped. But it has to be done carefully and correctly, in a way that leaves no room for a court ordered reversal. Preservation of agricultural land is a legitimate concern but appears to be shaky legal grounds for denying a rezoning when the concern does not apply equally in all cases.
90.5%