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 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
approved district automatically qualifies for use value taxation, regardless of a county’s land use tax policy.
No Formal Opinion
Acknowledging that they’d had problems in the past in accepting verbal opinions from the Attorney General’s office, the Orange Supervisors delayed their acceptance or denial of the district applications, in hopes of receiving an opinion from the state’s legal expert before the time limit for action expires on January 8. The Supervisors declined to accept the recommendation of both the county Planning Commission and their special AF District advisory committee that all three applications be approved.
Earlier in the meeting, the Supervisors heard from those opposed to and in favor of AF Districts.
Tom Purcell, attorney representing applicants for the three districts, stated the policy of the AF District Act: to preserve and protect farm lands as a source of food and agricultural and forestal products, to preserve and protect open space, clean air and the beauty of rural countrysides, to protect and enhance agricultural and forestal industries as a working, producing part of the economy.
Passage of the AF District Act was aimed at giving rural communities a tool to fight urban sprawl and uncontrolled development, maintained Purcell.
Water Impoundment!
He dismissed arguments that approval of the AF District applications would hamper future water impoundment projects, proposed for the general area that one of the applications would encompass. Purcell noted that the AF Act allows for review of approved districts every four years and mandates review at least every eight years. "There’s nothing in the law that says the Board can’t change a district,” said Purcell. If a water impoundment project is deemed
90.5%