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 1 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved

The clipping this text was read from
The clipping this text was read from

After reading this aloud, Chairman A. Y. Stokes replied that the Planning Commission had written “them” (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) to state that “our new proposed ordinance would include the criteria that would cover the restrictions for development in the flood plane...” But Stokes said the Agency now wants the County to amend its zoning ordinance to cover certain points: 1) reference and include an overlay district of the boundaries of the identified 100 year flood plane district as indicated on the flood plane insurance map. 2) reference the National Flood insurance Program, elevation and flood-proofing and the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. 3) require a permit for all flood plane development and record all base flood elevation data. 4) Include the following definitions: development, flood, 100 year flood, and substantial improvement.

The Agency’s letter requests that the amendments be sent to them before adoption into our zoning ordinance so that they can forward an “official letter of compliance and acceptance.”

Time is Critical

Planning Commissioner Newbill Miller expressed concern over the prospect of a further delay to the construction of the sewage system in Sperryville. He said the project is already operating on an extension. Then he recommended that the Commissioners refer the matter to Doug Baumgardner who, as attorney for the Water and Sewer Authority, could deal more effectively with the Federal Agency.

Zoning Administrator David Konick voiced similar concern about the time it would take to resolve the matter by corresponding through the mail. Konick referred to the Federal Agency’s letter, dated December 10, which was in response to the County’s letter of September 10, which in turn was in response to the Agency’s letter of July 6. “It took them three months simply to review it (our letter) and to say it didn’t meet the standards,” said Ko

93.5%