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 7 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
isn t it a tact tnat tne suae will be built by outsiders, and that rather than train new people from Rappahannock to operate the machine, Mr. Moore and company intend to bring in trained operators from their other “Alpine Slide” operation? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, then the “new jobs” argument in favor of the “Alpine Slide” is a fallacy. (2) What is the meaning of the term “the agriculturalrecreational character of Rappahannock County”, as used in the Special Use Permit application supposed to mean? Since this term is not defined anywhere in any county ordinance or other
statu\£^tfis meaningless as a practical matter. Since it has no legal significance, it is open to constant interpretation, and doubtless the Ski Corporation will have a different view of the matter than many Rappahannock residents.
(3) Since one of the chief arguments for permitting the installation of the Alpine Slide seems to be that it is the only way to put the "Ski Area” back on its feet, will the acceptance of this proposal set a precedent requiring the County to accept other proposals in the future in case this one fails? Perhaps there will be no rock festivals, subdivisions and condominiums right away. However, will approval of the Special Use Permit in this case to save the “Ski Area” bind the County to approve other, even less acceptable ideas in the future?
These are some of the serious questions posed by the Special Use Permit application of Mr. Moore’s Ski Corporation. There are others which have already been noted by county residents. While it is possible that some benefits may inure to the County through the approval of this request, these are, in my opinion, minimal, and, until all of the questions raised by this matter are fully and adequately answered, both by the Ski Corporation and by the written reports of the County agencies, no final decision should be made on this matter.
DAVID L. KON1CK
ESQ. Castleton
79.7%