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 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
UATCOTIL WctULLULOH Rappahannock Newt Staff Writer “Gentlemen, we shall return,” promised William Spieden after the Orange County Supervisors denied applications from Speiden and 65 other landowners for five Agricultural and Forestal Districts at last Thursday’s meeting.
From the outset of Supervisor hearings three months ago, it was obvious that the effort by Spieden, Richard Sanford and Randolph Colvin to achieve what they saw as protection for continued farming operations would be unsuccessful. The majority of the Supervisors had already made up their minds against agricultural districts—at least for the time being.
Decision on the AF District applications was postponed twice so the Board could wait for a ruling from the State Attorney General on whether forestry land in a district would receive use value taxation.
Orange County has a land use tax ordinance but its benefits are restricted to agricultural and horticultural property. Several of the Supervisors had expressed concern over the “impact” on the county’s tax base that an expansion of use value taxation to include forest land would have.
While the decision to accept or deny the agricultural district applications was delayed, it was never really in doubt. It appeared a foregone con
79.2%