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 2 · column 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
special use permit carried over to the building permit as well.
After checking the records of the 1980 action, the board concluded that in the absence of a specific directive, the one-year time limit on the building permit applied.
Sharon Luke expressed doubt as to whether the permit could be reissued since PotEd had not filed a development plan for the original as specified by the zoning ordinance.
Konick maintained that the requirement for a development plan does not apply to the type of construction involved in rebuilding the Luray-to-Sperryville line.
Only the board of supervisors can waive that requirement, Luke countered.
“I think the vicinity map submitted by Potomac Edison satisfies the requirement for a development plan,” Konick argued. “I don’t think there’s anything else for them to comply with.”
Bird noted that with two of the four BZA members present abstaining on conflict of interest, the question was moot.
“I would only object (on conflict grounds) if you voted negative,” Nichols joked.
“What do you think my wife would do if I voted positive?” Bird responded in the same humorous vein. On a more serious note, he added that if the requirement for a development plan is found to be unreasonable in this instance, it should be waived by the board of supervisors. Pot Ed’s building permit expires July 13, the chairman continued. Since the project is tied up in litigation, the utility is not now working on the line so if the permit extension is tabled, it won’t affect construction schedules, Bird added.
At present, work has been discontinued, Nichols acknowledged. “BuULdqrft know that we nlight not want to begin. There’s a legal question as to whether we have the right to begin,” he concluded.
94.2%