Draft offered

Draft offered

to commission

Planners consider stronger

stance on need for farming

By DAPHNE HUTCHINSON

Rappahannock News Staff Writer

Rappahannock’s comprehensive plan revision, derailed and delayed by personnel changes at the Planning District Commission which was acting as consultant, is now back on track.

At their February meeting, Rappahannock’s planning commissioners will review a draft rewritten by County Administrator John McCarthy. And they will consider incorporating much stronger language on resource protection proposed by Commissioner Werner Krebser.

Last month, Dr. Krebser handed out copies of a revised goals and objectives section which borrows heavily from nearby Clarke County, considered by many to be Virginia’s leader in resource protection.

In asking his fellow commissioners to study the nine pages, he said — and Mr. McCarthy confirmed —that comprehensive plans *are becoming crucial as Virginia courts look more to these documents rather than zoning ordinances in deciding suits between developers and governments over land use.

From an overall perspective, the proposed revision makes stewardship the county’s public policy: “Promote the philosophy that land is a finite resource and not a commodity, that all citizens are stewards of the land, and that the use, quality and area of the land are of primary importance to each present and future citizen,” reads the last of 10 principles.

The revision also gives more aggresive protection to the county’s threatened agricultural industry. It calls for a “vigorous agricultural development program” that emphasizes exploration and development of markets for Rappahannock’s agricultural products.

Land-use proposals to convert farmland to non-farm use would be approved "only if an overriding public need exists to change the land use, [if] the existing development areas cannot accommodate the new use, and extenuating circumstances exist.”

In addition, the support of use-value taxation and the formation of agricultural districts would be county policy as would the encouragement and facilitation of open space easement donations on land identified as having important scenic, historic, open-space, conservation, agricultural and wildlife habitat qualities.

For forest land, the suggested comprehensive plan revision states as policy, the county ensure that development is compatible with environmental features and “does not diminish natural and scenic values.”

To protect other natural resources, the policies would require that environmental impacts of activities directly or indirectly related to new construction — including removal of vegetation, cutting of trees, altering drainageways, grading and filling — are minimized. Land uses that have adverse environmental impacts which cannot be eliminated or minimized would be prohibited.

Specifically addressing ground water protection, the plan would have policies w'hich (1) “promote the best management of potential ground water pollution sources, including septic tanks, wellsland underground petroieum storage tanks, and (2) support the conduct of an inventory to identify environmentally-significant lands and the establishment of a county-wide ground water monitoring network.

Policies would also “support the establishment of historic districts” and “rural historic districts,” promote the placement of scenic easements on historic buildings and sites and on lands adjoining or in view from roads designated as Scenic Byways.

The proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan’s goals and objectives chapter would also:

• prohibit the extension of capital improvements into agricultural areas w hen such improvements would lead to increased development pressure.

• maintain the existing primary and secondary road system at its present level and upgrade it only for safety purposes or traffic increases planned by the county authorities.

See REVISIONS, p. 16