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 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
In reference to the BZA’s right to revoke a special use permit, Crigler cited the Cedar Knoll case as precedent. According to Crigler, the state Supreme Court ruled in that case that the Board of Zoning Appeals did not have original jurisdiction to revoke a special use permit.
Clear Difference
Judge Snead countered that “there's clearly a distinguishable difference” between the DeMent and Cedar Knoll cases since the Fairfax BZA attempted to revoke the building permit involved in Cedar Knoll 30 years after it was issued.
Only the time span is different, according to Crigler. Virginia operates under the Dillon Rule, he said, and since the General Assembly granted the power to revoke special use permits to the Zoning Administrator, "the only way the BZA can get into it is to hear the appeal from that revocation." Crigler acknowledged that the BZA had the right to attach conditions to a special use permit but he insisted that this hadn't been done in the DeMent case.
"Doesn't the record show that the BZA revoked the permit because of failure to comply with conditions?” asked Judge Snead. Referring to the use permit and a cover letter from McNear. Crigler said the permit stated that DeMent could build a 70 foot by 40 foot garage-storage addition to an existing building. Further, he said, the letter stated that the special use permit was issued by the BZA in accordance with the county zoning ordinance. '"There doesn't appear to be any conditions," Snead remarked.
86.8%