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 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 1)
Planner Alan Stokes warned against advocating growth in the unincorporated villages. Using Sperryville as an example, he said that excessive growth there could overburden the new sewer system, now being built as a “no-growth” system to meet waste water disposal needs of current residents while cleaning up an existing health problem caused by pollution of the Thornton River.
Luke countered that the plan's objectivies didn’t advocate growth in the towns—which have no formal boundaries—but rather within two or three miles of the unincorporated communities on lots large enough for a septic field and replacement.
A question mark was put beside the goal designating villages as a focal point for development.
No Washington Sewer
In reviewing the draft section that relates specifically to the town of Washington, Miller proposed eliminating the public facilities objective that states the town will attempt to “maintain a safe and adequate method of wastewater disposal for residents.”
Miller also opposed provisions for waste water disposal included in the list of long-range public facility needs cited by the Water and Sewer Authority. “You can delete the sewer system for Washington as far as I’m concerned,” the planner and town mayor stated. 1 “The problems (with waste water disposal) that the town has are not from new installations. They’re from old
90.1%