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 7 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
study the BZA's records and legal issues involved. Robertson said he understood the frustrations of the opposing landowners but added that he thought they understood that “considerations of fairness and what the law requires” meant the case had to be carried over for hearing at a later date. "I will say in open court that I hope the intervenors (the NPEA) know what they're doing."
"They know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing," Konick interjected.
"I hope they know they're in compliance (with the restraining order),’’ Robertson continued. He maintained that it was necessary for him to examine the BZA records which he'd only received that morning before ruling on contempt. Robertson explained that he’d amended the restraining order because he was seeking to restrain only the rights granted by the BZA's variance. “The amended language amplifies and clarifies the decree entered by the court." he said, adding that without going over the records and the county’s zoning laws, he couldn't know what conduct the BZA could legally restrain under Rappahannock’s ordinances. “What the restraining order means will be decided in the due process hearing," he concluded, setting the hearing date for July 14 at 2 p.m.
Konick got in one final word, quoting one of his lawprofessors: “Sometimes these damn rules don't make any
90.0%