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 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
for “cross motions and summary judgments and other dispositive motions.”
He scheduled Monday December 5 as the date to hear “arguments on dispositive motions.”
The case has been simplified somewhat. Only four counts remain of the 10 originally filed. The first claims the action of the Board of Supervisors in amending the zoning ordinance to ban the land application of sewage sludge is a violation of Virginia law and the county ordinances. The second claims the action is a violation of the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. The third claims that the plaintiffs have been denied Virginia “substantive due process,” and the fourth remaining count claims that Virginia law preempts county law.
Mr. Gilliam had the opportunity to argue his side first. He said that in 49 introductory paragraphs the plaintiffs claim that the county “lacks the power to do what they did.” He said that changing law at both the federal and state level “recognizes the local interest in regulation.”
Judge Robinson asked if Federal statutes “give local government authority to completely prohibit” the spreading of sludge.
Mr. Gilliam said the county’s de
91.0%