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 3 · column 1 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
First, I’d like to say that I approve of good zoning. I used to live where a Monsanto plant was adjacent to a residential area. There was industrial and residential development on top of one another. It was a mess.
But, for several reasons, I don’t think Rappahannock needs this new, proposed zoning ordif nance. I think instead county officials and citizens should work together to revise the 1973 Zoning Ordinance where necessary. My reasons for this are as follows:
• The ’73 ordinance is known. With it’s good provisions and its bad provisions, the people of Rappahannock know this ordinance. The proposed ordinance amfthe effect ofits provisions are unknown.
• The 73 Ordinance can be corrected. There’s no proof the present zoning ordinance cannot be revised. I’ve seen no proof that the 73 Ordinance has ever been successfully challenged in the courts.
What’s wrong with the present ordinance? The only reason given by the planners for changing from a 60-page ordinance to a new one 3Vfe times as long is that this is needed to make the zoning ordinance legally defensible in court. What are the legal deficiencies in the present zoning ordinance? I’ve asked, but I get no answers.
I think the answer is that we can revise the ’73 Ordinance. I’ve suggested revisions. For example, in the 73 Ordinance, provisions concerning control of places of worship and their uses need to be changed.
85.8%