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 8 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
Confusion
Abounds
At Meeting
(Continued from Page 1) in the district by the supervisors, “the planning commission decided to start the process all over again as a matter of policy,” Baumgardner reported.
Once the landowners resubmitted, all the procedures had to be repeated, he said.
Noting that she lacked a legal background, clerk Diane Bruce disagreed with the commonwealth’s attorney, maintaining that “tag-ons”—whether adjacent or non-adjacent—must come in the initial 30-day period after the AFD application is filed and can’t be included by the supervisors in the final step of the approval process.
She suggested that a committee be formed to establish guidelines for action on an ag district and to resolve procedural questions.
Bruce recalled that she’d informed the supervisors at their regular November meeting that “I was washing my hands of agricultural districts. 1 will not accept any more applications unless guidelines are set up or unless a writ of mandamus is entered saying I have to.”
There’s a possibility that any guidelines developed by the county might not comply with state law, Latham noted.
The Virginia Code section is relatively clear, countered Baumgardner, reading that the supervisors “may adopt as an ordinance the property or any modification of the (AFD) application it deems appropriate, including the inclusion, to the extent feasible, of adjacent significant farming and forest lands...”
In addition, Baumgardner said, VPI’s expert on agricultural districts, Paxton Marshall, concurs that the supervisors can allow the addition of adjacent land even though Marshall also believes that it’s better for tag-ons to occur in the initial 30-day period.
90.1%