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 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
By LOU HATTER
Rappahannock New9 Staff Writer
“The comprehensive plan is a damn good document,” said Washington Planning Commission member Frank Reynolds.
Mr. Reynolds was defending the controversial plan recommended to the Town Council for consideration along with proposed changes to the existing zoning ordinances. The commission’s recommendation for adoption followed a stormy public hearing held on July 10. Commissioners William Wickens, Dan Lewis and Randolph Clater concurred with Mr. Reynolds in recommending both documents to the council.
Much of the controversy surrounding the comprehensive plan centered around its conservative approach to commercial growth within the town. The comprehensive plan describes a village “(which) has not changed appreciably since its inception . . . dotted with gardens, orchards, meadows, pastures, hayfields and open spaces . . . characterized by detached dwellings with attractive yards and gardens.”
Mr. Reynolds explained that the comprehensive plan provides a basis for the changes to the zoning ordinances. The adoption of a comprehensive plan by every municipality in the state has been mandated by the General Assembly. “It lays out clearly the reasons for the resurgence of the town — and it’s not widespread commercialism,” he said.
“The plan provides plenty of commercial space to meet the needs of the town now and in the near future. Look around at other towns getting into trouble by zoning more commercial areas than needed. They are artificially inflating the intensity of use,” he continued.
The law requires that the comprehensive plan be reviewed at least every five years, Mr. Reynolds explained. “And people can petition the town to amend the zoning ordinances any time. In the future the town may change the plan and/or the zoning to meet changing needs.”
In defending the commission’s recommendations regarding the four proposed zoning classifications, Mr. Reynolds explained that it is first necessary to understand that presently the entire town is zoned residential. “There are only four ‘by-right’ uses in the town: singlefamily dwellings, two-family dwellings, churches and libraries. All other uses are either non-conforming (uses which precede the adoption of the ordinance ^ or special permit.”
The present ordinances “offer little protection for the truly residential areas,” Mr. Reynolds said. Any use which has previously been granted a permit may go anywhere in town. “The Attorney General has ruled that there must be a rational basis for giving (a permit) one place and denying it in another—otherwise the court has ruled that the zoning is ‘arbitrary and capricious’.”
Several local businessmen were among the three dozen residents who attended the hearing. Both C. E. (Skippy) Giles, owner of the Washington Cash Store, and Wallace Ciitzcr, who with hit sons operates a heavy equipment business in town, protested the location of their businesses in residential zones.
Both men complained that the residential zoning would devalue their property and make it more difficult for them to sell, should they decide to do so.
Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Wickens explained that both businesses now operate in residential zones by special permit “so we’re not taking anything away from you. It will be the same as it’s always been.” Both businesses are non-conforming uses, the commissioners said. “Their use existed legally before the zoning went into effect. Any legally constituted use may continue—it may be sold, or the owner’s children may use it,” Mr. Reynolds stated.
He added that “good zoning practice requires that zoning be done in blocks.” The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled against “spot zoning” (zoning one particular area for the private benefit of one particular individual) and has declared that the purpose of zoning is the general welfare of the community—that areas should be zoned which are in the best interests and the common good.
“At some point it becomes a judgement call—and the people affected may question it,” Mr. Reynolds conceded. The key is “to look at the make-up of the general area, not each specific business (lot) smack in the middle of a residential area.”
“We have protected people with necessary uses. I don’t know of another town which allows a non-conforming use to be rebuilt even if it is 100 percent destroyed. We have no intention of putting anyone out of business,” Mr. Reynolds affirmed. “The property values are enhanced by the village atmosphere—no one loses money by being located in Washington. Its appeal is not in its commercial potential.”
“I think there’s some fine tuning which could be done; some «• things we didn’t think of,” the commissioner admitted. “But it does respect responsible renovation, high-quality craftsmen, high-quality restaurants and the maintanence of a small village atmosphere. That’s why this town is as good as it is.”
Copies of both the proposed comprehensive plan and the amendments to the present zoning ordinance are available to the public in the office of the county clerk. A public hearing on the two documents has been scheduled by the Town Council for 8 p.m. Wednesday, July 30, at the Courthouse in Washington.
95.6%