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 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
proposal, the new owner of Jordan Farm in Gordonsville, wished to withdraw his property from the application. The Supervisors voted unanimous approval to the request.
After his resolution failed to win support, Hooper tried again with a motion solely to approve the three AF District applications. After several minutes of silence, Supervisor Robert Edwards seconded the motion “to get it on the floor.”
“We owe these people an answer,” said Edwards but added that he couldn’t vote for approval on the AF District applications until word came from the Attorney General’s office on the land use tax question.
“We don’t have enough information to pass any tax law change,” Edwards maintained. “If land use tax is mandatory, my vote will have to be against (the three AF District applications)...If it’s not mandatory, I’ll probably vote for them.”
Edwards declined to accept Commonwealth Attorney Carter’s verbal report of the Attorney General office’s ruling. “I don’t believe we have an opinion until we see it in black and white,” he commented.
Tax Relief Not Relevant Hooper countered that the tax impact of an AF District was not relevant. If it’s tax relief that the applicants are after, there are other ways of obtaining it, ways that would “lock up the land so tight you can’t touch it,” said Hooper, apparently referring to concern over whether an AF District would effect tentative plans for a water impoundment in one of the proposed districts. Hooper warned the other
92.3%