questions, and the ordinance has been thought into question

questions, and the ordinance has been thought into question by both the Circuit Court and by the Attorney General of Virginia. The 1973 ordinance restricts, to a larger extent than necessary, certain uses in flood plains and in other zoning districts. Churches are not even allowed in certain zoning districts under the 1973 ordinance, while the new ordinance would allow churches in all zoning districts upon a showing that they would be compatible with the surrounding area. The 1973 ordinance gives too much discretion to the zoning administrator, while the proposed ordinance prescribes in much more detail what procedures and standards must be applied by the zoning administrator, and gives much of his power to the BZA and the Board of Supervisors.

The proposed ordinance allows the processing, storage, and sale of agricultural products (which is our most important industry) by right in agricul<turaland conservation zones, while the *1973 ordinance Required a special permit for some oflLhese uses. Under the 1973 ordinance, no building of any kind could be built in a floodplain or within 50 feet of a floodplain, and many other uses which could safely be carried on in such an area were prohibited. The proposed ordinance allows compatible uses, and also allows accessory structures to compatible uses, as well as storage of materials and equipment upon a showing of compliance with reasonable standards.

In my opinion, the extra length of the proposed zoning ordinance is necessary to have a valid and workable piece of legislation. It is better organized than the present ordinance, and a the sections which concern you. The mathe sections which conern you. The majority of the extra length comes from increased space for definitions (for more clarity), and for standards for certain uses that are more specific and less subject to arbitrary interprets