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 10 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 1) litigation on that when we don’t have a restraining order hanging over our heads." he warned.
Konick maintained that conditions attached by the BZA to the temporary variance—requiring that amplification "for religious services" be turned off after 10 p.m. and limiting attendance at “religious services" to 400—was clear evidence that the BZA understood the campground was to be used for religious services, not just as a campground. "I'd like a ruling from this court on just what is restrained...that they’re restrained from camping AND religious services."
Konick charged that the NPEA. with a request for rewording the restraining order. was "trying to maneuver this court into making technical changes to allow these people to do exactly what they intended to do from the beginning... Evidently, it's important to them to have at least the appearance of legality."
Agreeing with Lynn that the court can't restrain any activities beyond those authorized in the BZA variance. Robertson asked Konick how a change in the wording of the restraining order would "do violence" to his clients.
"It doesn’t say that they can't have the Nationwide Holiness Campground camp meeting." Konick answered.
Robertson agreed but added that the order will still enjoin any rights conferred by the BZA’s variance.
Services Covered?
"In your view, are religious services included in the BZA order?" asked Konick.
"They can't have that..." Robertson began.
“Now wait a minute your honor." interrupted Jones. He maintained that the variance covered only the right to have a seasonal campground. According to Jones, his clients “went along with the other restrictions—which, quite frankly. 1 don’t think the board of zoning appeals had the right to impose—"simply to gain authorization for the campground. "They’re restrained only from the use of that property as a campground," he concluded. Robertson repeated that his restraining order covered everything granted in the BZA’s variance. “This issue is getting deeper and deeper." he said, adding that the record of the BZA hearings and evidence of the board's intent were not in evidence. "In issuing the restraining order, the court was not looking at anything but the board of zoning appeals' order. That was my intent. I can't say on the face of it whether it deals with a campground or with religious services."
Robertson acknowledged that he lacked the authority to dissolve or modify a restraining order upheld by the Supreme Court but maintained that he could clarify his ruling.
"But clarification includes dropping the wording of the restraining order." Konick argued.
87.8%