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 1 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
By Richard Lykes
Special to the Rappahannock News
An advertised “public forum” on a proposed Tree Ordinance and Lighting Ordinance attracted only three members of the Town of Washington Planning Commission on Monday evening— barely a quorum— and two members of the public. The commission members expressed “shock” that there were not more people in the town to take part in the public hearing.
The debate, if there was one, centered on “property rights” of individuals.
Skippy Giles, a life-long resident and former member of the Town Council, spoke up promptly, telling the commission that he was “strongly opposed to the town telling property owners what they should do or should not do with their property, including trees.”
Commission member Mitzi Young while expressing some sentiment for Giles’ position, voiced concern for trees which Eire “special” to the town and should be protected. She cited in particular the “lovely old magnolia tree” next to the former Rappahannock National Bank that would have been cut down if the bank had gone ahead with its initial renovation plans for the property.
Giles, a local realtor with Re/Max, continued to vent his unhappiness with the fact that such a proposal was even before the commission or Town Council. Noting that he had been in the town all his life, Giles stated unequivocally, “I don’t know of any property owners that would agree to give up their rights to control their own property and trees.”
Brandon Fowler, acting as chairman of the commission in Barbara Stockton’s absence, tried more than once to bring attention to what he perceived as the real intent of the proposed ordinance: a largely “voluntary” program under which property owners can
See PLANNING, Page A10
r
93.9%