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 18 · column 2 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
“real disappointed” unless “it is enforced,” he said. “If it’s carried out like it’s written,” however, Johnson said the ordinance will work.
“If we’re going to have (a zoning ordinance) let’s have it fair, have it administered fair,” Johnson said.
Johnson added that he was skeptical that too much power was left to the zoning administrator.
“If he’s a friend of yours, you can do anything,” Johnson said.
Former zoning administrator David Konick thanked the planning commission for writing an ordinance to “protect Rapphannock County.”
Konick said that without zoning, a contractor “who has the brains and who has the money who doesn’t give a damn about Rappahannock County, will come in here, make a lot of money and wants to make a quick buck and get the hell out of here before you know what happened.”
He also said Fauquier County “changes every day and it’s going to be here before you know it.”
Bob Dennis of the Piedmont Environmental Council said of the proposal: “I think it will help all of us” and suggested it was “time to move ahead” and pass the ordinance despite it containing what he called “some quirks.”
However, not every speaker believed in the success of the ordinance.
Eastham, who claimed the ordinance was a close duplication — “word for word” in some sections — of that in effect in Fauquier County (Fauquier planner Richard McNear also drafted the Rappahannock proposal), asked if the proposal is expected to stop congestion in Rappahannock, “why in the the hell hasn’t it” in Fauquier?
Eastham also blamed the planners and supervisors for making few changes in the proposal, despite hearings and meetings held in each of the five districts.
Eastham, the most aggressive protestor Tuesday, also warned that the ordinance “is a perfect vehicle” to continue what he termed “this game of favoritism.”
Supervisors Nelson Lane and Clarence Baldwin voiced their support for the proposal, although Lane said, “ I don’t think this ordinance even pretends to stop development.”
And Tom White, a Flint Hill landowner said he supports the ordinance. However, he, too, said he has “some reservations” about not having elected officials in control of the ordinance. Still, White said, “I feel it would be good for the county. ”
89.8%