Planners then voted

Planners then voted unanimously to recommend that the Supervisors deny the rezoning request.

Supervisors’ Hearing

At the Supervisors’ meeting on Thursday, opponents to the rezoning repeated their testimony from the Planning Commission public hearing. The Supervisors’ session was much quieter with Commonwealth Attorney George Davis declining to speak at all in support of his wife’s application.

Mrs. Davis reiterated her reasons for requesting the rezoning and added one new justification. According to Mrs. Davis, she would have the right to put up an advertising sign on the property only if the land is rezoned. With the rezoning, all that is required for Highway Department sign permission is the signature of the Zoning Administrator, attesting that the sign's location is on commercial property. She later acknowledged that she could get Highway Department permission to erect a sign for a business in an agricultural zone but added that she would then have to go before the BZA twice and, with a special use permit, would have to return to the BZA for additional permits every time a new tenant changed the type of business on the property.

When asked by Luke what type of sign advertising was planned, Mary Selles answered “for starters, something that says antiques.”

Hand Count

After listening to proponents and opponents, Luke took three quick hand counts that indicated 15 persons for the rezoning, 24 against and 34 in favor of granting a use permit.

Luke suggested to the rest of the Supervisors that the case be held open until April 20 for public comment. The Supervisors will make thendecision at their regular May meeting. Supervisor H. B. Wood commented that the Supervisors had never been officially informed of the Planners’ action. In response, Luke read a letter from Commission Chairman