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 17 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Town Council
Continued from page 1
the state bureaucracy.”
The conclusions in Mr. Burner’s report, Mr. Morehouse hypothesized, “were primarily prompted by the fact that he had to walk (up the mountain) to the spring on a very warm day.”
Amendments passed
A joint public hearing with the town’s planning commission resulted in the passage of two amendments, one to limit government offices to the village services district around the Courthouse; the other to the Historic District Ordinance which makes exterior painting of the same color a by-right activity.
Mr. Wickens said that the limitation of governmental offices was prompted by concerns of “encroachment” into the town’s commercial and residential properties. He cited the conversion of the Washington Cash Store into offices for the Health Department as the specific instance which caused the concern.
Council member Peter Skowronski objected to the proposal, pointing out that, “as the county seat, we have an obligation to provide for county offices without going through rezoning. That seems like a lot of trouble.”
If the extra space is needed, Mr. Wickens maintained, “We want to go through something which will get the attention of the town. Something which would change the character of the town should have lots of hoops and hurdles - people should know about it.”
Mr. Fisher added, “What (we) are doing is not prohibiting the future expansion of the town for government services, but (we) are making a future town council take a hard look at it - not just check it off one night.”
Town Attorney Frank Reynolds pointed out that, under state law, the town is required to amend its comprehensive plan every five years. The plan could be amended and land rezoned “if you feel pressure and need to expand.”
With Mr. Skowronski opposed, the amendment was passed by the council 5-1.
The amendment to the historic district ordinance was also passed by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Skowronski . opposed again.
Councilman Wickens explained that he did not view the amendment as a change. “If anything was ever clearly legislative intent, it was that a change of color was as important as
92.9%