permit. McNear said he left two written messages for

permit. McNear said he left two written messages for Atkins at the home site, requesting the landowner to contact him regarding setback regulations. McNear finally met with Atkins and informed him that he needed a variance from the BZA to build so close to the road. In addition, McNear reported, he advised Atkins to stop construction until the BZA acted on his variance request. Atkins ignored the advice. As of this week, he was still banging away on his house.

He has put the BZA members in an awkward position. If they should deny the variance and if Atkins should contest the ruling, a court may find it hard to require a man—an everyday working man—to tear down his finished dream house and build it up again further from the road. As everyone recognizes, Virginia is one of the strongest property rights states in the Union. Many of the Commonwealth’s sons and daughters resent any intrusion that tells them what they can do with their property and the courts in the state reflect their position.

Realizing this, it’s not hard to imagine a court holding that it would work a hardship on Atkins to tear down his new home.

At the same time, we believe that if Atkins had come to the BZA before he built his home, as required by law, and if he had been turned down in his variance request, the BZA’s decision would have been upheld in any court challenge. After all, it’s not as if the man has no where else to build. His 11 acre tract on Route 211 surely offers other sites suitable for a home that also meet county setback regulations.

It’s a hard position to take but we believe that BZA members should ^evaluate Atkins’ variance request just as if the house was not already constructed. If Atkins didn’t know the law. he should have. Ignorance is no excuse—law enforcement personnel don't buy the old timeworn alibi: “But sir. I didn’t know what the speed limit was."

Why should the BZA?