“No one’s opposed to more power,” commented Supervisor H.

“No one’s opposed to more power,” commented Supervisor H. B. Wood, In reference to the greater local control that repeal would bring, “Come present a resolution to us at our meeting,” he suggested.

“The repeal of the Dillon Rule is not going to solve all our problems miraculously,” commented Bob Dennis. He maintained that care needs to be exercised in designating areas for future growth and development in the county’s comprehensive plan. He cautioned that . once development is planned for, it becomes the approved use for that particular piece of property. Courts will automatically allow a developer to build an airport or tbwnhouses on his land if the tract is designated for that type of development in a comprehensive plan—and it makes no difference whether or not the development is intended to occur ten years in the future when the locality could feasibly provide required services.

“The comprehensive plan shouldn’t go overboard in specifying where commercial or residential developments are going to be,’’ Dennis warned.

Nels Parson volunteered the services of RLEP in drawing up a resolution favoring the repeal of the Dillon Rule for the Supervisors’ endorsement.

While not opposing the resolution, Supervisor Dick Latham noted that Virginia needed a balance of power between the state and localities. “Localities shouldn’t have it all,’’ he said.

Growth Limitation Legal

Enabling legislation doesn't specify what a comprehensive plan must say, according to Phil Irwin. “It can be what the majority of the people of Rappahannock County want it to be,’’ he said. If majority opinion holds that the county should try to control growth, then this approach ought to be tried “and let somebody take a shot at it,’’ he argued.

“I submit you can limit growth in Virginia,” Irwin continued, referring to the Supreme Court decision upholding Petaluma,