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 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 1) ricultural use. Whether a camp is used for just five months or whether it’s located on land owned by the farm operator, “it still impacts on the neighbors,” argued Henry Gorfein. “It shouldn’t be a ‘by-right’ use; any migrant labor camp should be allowed only with a special use permit.”
He told the supervisors that his property is next door to a “farm operator’s” migrant labor camp. “The farm operator has 450 acres (of orchards) leased. We see the potential for having every migrant laborer in Rappahannock County next door to us . . . We don’t think that’s fair. Somehow, you should be able, to keep a handle on this.”
Mr. Miller agreed that it would be unfair to limit migrant camps to land owned by the farmer who employs the migrants. “That’s the same point I made.”
As to a cap on the number of farm laborers to be housed at a camp, the supervisors maintained that this could be addressed only by the Board of Zoning Appeals in considering specific cases.
“We don’t want to set a figure that we just pull out of the air ... I don’t see how we can fairly set a limit,” said Chairman Hubert Gilkey.
“Unless you say you can’t be big in the apple industry,” Mr. Miller added.
“If a farmer is going to keep on operating, he’s not going to have any more people than necessary,” noted J. R. Latham.
“It’s a difficult problem and we have no answers,” interjected Meredith Gorfein. “What makes sense to us sounds hopelessly unfair to the orchardists,” she conceded.
But at the least, she told the supervisors, specify that a special use permit is always required for farm labor housing so that it can be “looked at as a case by case thing”
96.7%