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 2 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page I)’, zoning ordinance for rezoning—not under the subdivision ordinance for t plat approval. *V
Davis advised Hot * Supervisors that they wen required to schedule a public ; hearing under the subdivision ordinance if Goode makjSs application. Hq*. acknowledged that the c^te ■ was in litigation but enlphasized that Virginia ■’ Supreme Court decisions >' held that development) proposals required an ap- > plication and hearing befoje the Supervisors under ’4« ; subdivision ordinance. \
Luke asked Davis to look * at the letters from Compton 1 ■andGoode “and tell us',lf \ -that’s an application (for .‘a '■ •subdivision hearing).’’ V '■
6avis’ answered that “It ' sounds like an application,^’ adding that the matter didn’t require referral to tl\e , Planners, only a resolution from the Board of Supervisors to advertise and hold a public hearing.
"I don’t think you should be rushed,” interjected Supervisor H. B. Wood In reference to Davis' quick answer. “You need more time than today,” he added, suggesting that the Supervisors hear Davis’ interpretation of the letters at the next Board meeting.
“That’s been a big problem in the past.” Davis responded. “Things have been rushed through without proper consideration,” he said, agreeing to study the letters further and advise the Supervisors next month on whether the correspondence constituted an application for hearing under the subdivision ardinance. State Senator Nathan Miller, at the Supervisors' I neeting to hear local concerns before the opening of he 1979 session of the jeneral Assembly, was told 1 hat state man- i lates—particularly those i •elating to education—still ' )resented the biggest 1 >roblem to Rappahannock. 3
83.1%