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 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
violated by representatives of county government—in this case, the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Davis contended in the intervention petition that the BZA had no power to either approve or deny the ski area’s special use permit application and so acted beyond its scope and in violation of county ordinances in considering the permit request.
BZA attorney Robert Fitzgerald countered that the Board of Supervisors had not been aggrieved by the denial of the ski area’s application. He noted that, in other Virginia cases, 'a county's governing body was usually allowed to intervene in proceedings where the BZA had granted a permit or allowed a special use that was detrimental to the public welfare.
Acknowledging that Davis had maintained no special use permit was necessary to allow the uses requested by the ski area, Fritzgerald stated “if that's true, then the Board of Supervisors is not aggrieved.” If no special permit is needed for the Alpine slide and other uses, then the Supervisors can instruct the Zoning Administrator to issue the necessary building permits, he said.
Moot Point
The Board of Supervisors can order its agent to do whatever the Supervisors want and therefore, can very well make the BZA’s decision to deny the application a moot point, Fitzgerald continued. But it’s not up to the court to do this—it’s up to the Supervisors, he argued.
In regard to the constitutionality of the zoning
90.4%