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 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
JT-” " - * • To tfte etf tor ' * » ■ —
This letter is a rebuttal to the points Mr. Miller made in our Sept. 20 interview. I will give his points and then address them.
First, I would like to say that even though our comments were supposed to be personal I believe mine reflect the views of a great many of the county residents. Also, I feel Mr. Miller’s reflect the Planning Commission.
• “The ”73 ordinance cannot be revised.” Mr. Miller still has not elaborated on what he means. I can draw up revisions so I know it’s possible; also the Planning Commission and supervisors have amended the setback requirements and are discussing amending the flood plain section since August 15.
• “Zoning law is a specialized field.” The Code of Virginia and the description of powers and duties in the rear section of the proposed ’84 ordinance tell us the members of the Planning Commission are appointed because of their experience. Therefore, using the Code and other related materials they should not need any additional help to amend our 73 ordinance, should they?
• “The present ordinance is not legally defensible.” I’m not sure this is correct, either, because they won’t give specifics. One thing I’m sure of: the Planning Commission and Mr. McNear cannot defend the proposed '84 ordinance to the citizens of Rap-pahani nock.
• “Zoning is absolutely necessary.” Although I agree with this statement, I’m not sure where the limit is on the individual citizen.
Also, I gathered from this point we are going into residential lot development, which our Supervisors are against, and these new people must not
79.9%