(Continued from Page 1) elected or appointed; unclear enforcement

(Continued from Page 1) elected or appointed; unclear enforcement provisions; no veto power for Board of Supervisors who are elected officials; more special exception permits, rather than special permits, should be specified, another move White said will put more authority in the hands of elected supervisors rather than appointed boards.

Other Concerns Aired

Other residents who spoke said they were concerned in general about zoning issues. Said Ruth Grimsley: “If Jesus were here, would you grant him a special-use permit to build a church?”

Margaret Dodson joined another resident who said he was concerned about religious groups overtaking the county. “Is there anything in the proposed ordinance to deal with groups?” she asked.

Planner Dick McNear said that Section 3.3-2 of the proposed zoning ordinance requires a special permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for establishment of a place of worship. McNear said that the proposed zoning ordinance was more liberal in allowing churches. He said churches would be allowed “in all districts with a special permit.”

County officials at the meeting included the planning commissioners, the supervisors and a representative of the BZA. Alter Wakefield residents spoke, they answered questions and made observations.

Wakefield Supervisor Hubert Gilkey III said he had sat in the audience in 1973 when the current zoning ordinance was a proposed document. He' said he had circulated petitions, too, and understood the reluctance of residents to accept a new zoning ordinance.

“This ordinance is better and fairer,” he said. “Give it a fair chance. Make an honest effort to read (it). Heresay is what’s hurting everyone.”

Zoning that would be fair to neighbors was a major concern of Planning Commissioner Werner Krebser, who represents Wakefield District. Krebser said he’d hate to see an old person who’d worked all his life to pur