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 4 · column 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
zoning ordinance was impractical.
The suit also contends that the BZA’s authorization of the variance constituted a rezoning, action that is a prerogative of the board of supervisors, and is therefore in violation of the Virginia Code. According to the documents filed October 9, the BZA members acted in bad faith “by completely ignoring” the Virginia Code requirements “which each and every one of them either knew or should have known prohibited the granting of the variance sought by the applicants and by failing to obtain and follow the advice of the County Attorney, Douglas K. Baumgardner.”
The petitioners ask the circuit court to (1) review the BZA’s decision; (2) issue a restraining order enjoining the zoning administrator from issuing any building permit based on the BZA’s decision and enjoining the Atkins from proceeding to build or subdivide and (3) allow costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against the BZA members who took part in tne variance decision.
As principal defendants, the suit names BZA chairman Josef Gardiner and BZA members James Massie, George Muth and James Swindler.
“We are concerned for the integrity of the zoning ordinance,” said Dr. Krebser in explaining rationale behind the suit against the BZA.
“We’re bringing the suit for that reason only,” Bird added. “It’s not directed at any individual.
We regret that Mr. and Mrs. Atkins may be affected but there’s no other way for a citizen to protest against the B21A’s action. We realize that any legal action is likely to be taken personally but we want to emphasize that the
88.4%