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 11 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 1)
Preston asked if condemnation would be used “only aa a last resort.” Supervisor Lane responded, “Yes.”
When asked what criteria other than land compatability the supervisors were using to determine an appropriate landfill location, Supervisor Lane said the property could not be a stream or swampy, but preferably gently rolling, wooded acreage with fairly good access. Supervisor f-«m» added that he was awaiting response from two county administrators aim would be sending their county’s list of priorities in selection of landfill sites.
Residents wondered about the size of the proposed site, which, according to supervisor Lane, was 138 acres. He said Madison County had just acquired 261 acres and that a large tract would allow for an adequate buffer zone while taking growth into consideration.
The supervisors then motioned to go into executive session.
Chairman Latham later discussed during a telephone interview the board’s decision to begin condemnation proceedings.
He said the board had made no prior decision about the acquisition; the decision was made following executive session during which all alternatives were outlined and discussed. “This seemed to be the most prudent thing to do,” he said.
He said the decision had not been made hastily. In fact, the county had been in violation of state codes for a number of years. He said the supervisors had asked for public input on several occasions in regard to location of a landfill, but had received no feedback.
He said that the board had been reminded it was out of compliance a year ago, when it first considered a possible landfill site. The board had been told by an engineer that a central
76.8%