ington and Sperryville. “There’s only one big farm left.”

ington and Sperryville. “There’s only one big farm left.” With septic fields being put in all over the countryside, the water supply will inevitably be poisoned, he warned. “It's a drop here, a drop there, but it’s going to do it.” In Sperryville, the effluent from those six dwelling units are going into a system which is designed to handle it, Mr. Johnson said, instead of into a septic field and eventually into the groundwater.

To deny this application, Mr. Johnson concluded, “is to say that we are going to take another 150acre farm, cut it into 25-acre lots, put six houses up — and there goes another farm.”

Betty Brown spoke in favor of the application as well, seconding the dire need for affordable housing in the area. “I hope that you will go with a six-unit dwelling. The more units you put in, the cheaper rent you can charge.”

Six units, she added, “do not begin to take care of the need . . . Rob has already got people applying for the spaces.”

Mrs. Trinca requested, and was granted, an opportunity to rebut Mr. Johnson’s arguments. She said that she interprets the ordinance differently than he does.

“I would reiterate that all the citizens of Sperryville need to address this problem of housing — not just one. I for one plan to put up several units across the street — and there are several others also.

“By all of us doing a little bit,” Mrs. Trinca maintained, “w'e can retain the historic character of the village.”

Density the only question

The BZA members told the audience that they appreciated all the comments made by all the speakers. “It made me aware of a problem in Sperryville,” Mr. Zindel said.

But Peter Kramer emphasized that, “it is not in our power to change the ordinance. The question is density — that’s what we vote on.

Mr. Zindel agreed, saying that “Every village has its own problems, but we can’t address them.”

Mr. Swindler questioned the interpretation of public water, suggesting that a well monitored by the Health Department would qualify.

“That’s not public water,” Mr. Kramer maintained.

“Yes, it is,” Mr. Swindler insisted. “I have my well inspected every three months. It serves the public, as would a private system which serves the public — the people who rent the units.”

If that could be shown to be a valid interpretation, Mr. Kramer said, “then we get into semantics. I have a feeling about what the ordinance intended, but I would need to do more research before I speak on that.”

Short of an intention to serve the development with public water, Mr. Kramer continued, “there is still the question of density. I cannot make a finding that this complies with density requirements.”

Mr. Zindel and Mr. Swindler agreed, and the application was unanimously denied.

“Important statements about housing in this community have been made here,” Mr. Kramer told the audience. “I don’t want you to think that we have ignored them.”

But, he continued, “it is not within our power to address them here. That is something which the Board of Supervisors needs to look at.”