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 5 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Alighting ordinance for the
commercial sector has
flashed from initial conception to the Planning Commission, to the Board of Supervisors, back to the Planning Commission, and now forward again to the Board of Supervisors, all in five years. Markets rise and fall, world crises begin and end, but Rappahannock County shoulders on with all due deliberate speed with its codes and ordinances.
Some say the lighting ordinance is frivolous, not needed, that it is another example of bureaucratic mum bo-jumbo, or that it is the work of a small group of do-gooders; or that currently required site plans solve the problem, or that it won’t stand up in a court of law. They say it is another step in government telling us what to do; or that local businesses are aware that excessive light is not wanted in the county; that it lacks public support, or that unregulated fighting is needed for security purposes;
Others argue that the ordinance preserves the night skies so we can enjoy seeing the moon and the stars, that it prevents glare, fight trespass, and the waste of energy; that there is a safety issue due to diminished vision in going from a brightly fit area to darkness in vehicles; that property values are preserved (who wants to five near Sheetz). They say Corporate America will come in and put local businesses out of business by “out-fighting’’ them; that statistics show excessive fighting does not prevent crime. They note that all current businesses in the county are grandfathered in— they do not have to adhere to the proposed fighting ordinance.
The key argument, though, .was nailed down by Charles Strittmatter at the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, when the fighting ordinance was approved by a narrow margin of 4 (Matthews, Junk,
94.4%