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 10 · column 6 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
The proposed ordinance was the subject of a letter written to the Council’s legal counsel, Doug Baumgardner, by Robert Eastham on October 19, and read by Kramer at the meeting. Eastham states in the letter that the proposed ordinance, if adopted with the five mile radius clause, would be extending the jurisdiction of the Council over 30 percent of the county.
Eastham suggested in the letter that the Council establish a protected area that would cover Hampton district from the park boundary to the center line of Route 522 below Washington. Eastham wrote that the boundary could be extended even further if the Council deemed it necessary, but that the five mile radius “would not be foolproof, as Council member Wickens suggests, but foolhardy.”
Wickens was not present, but Brad Fisher told the Council that he had talked to a geologist with the State Water Control Board who advised the Council “to take the whole five if we can get it.” The geologist, Jerry Sanford, based his advice on general data which shows a series of faults running from Flint Hill to Sperryville, which means that pollutants could travel along a fault to other water supplies including Washington’s, according to Sanford. Fisher said that Sanford would not definitely say what the Council should do because of the lack of detailed data on the area.
82.5%