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 5 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued frajn Page 1) approved the subdivision in response to arguments that the lot was indeed suitable for building; that the board had approved the special use permit on the basis of different plans; and that a legal precedent in a Virginia Beach case had been etablished when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the local board’s variance denial by setting the definition of a hardship.
The court had ruled that the hardship has to be approaching confiscation, meaning that the owner is almost denied any use of the land without a variance.
Baumgardner, who had attended the meeting only in his role as the adjoining landowner, formulated an onthe-spot rebuttal to Konick’s three points.
At the time of subdivision, he argued, the owner was not required to prove that the parcel fully suited all his building needs. The owner must satisfy questions of right-of-way, slope and sanitation. Further, Baumgardner said, it is not necessary for the Board of Zoning Appeals to make inquiry into the intentions or representations of the applicant at the time of the subdivision.
“Nothing prevents the landowner from doing something with his land even after finding problems with the land,” said Baumgardner in response to Konick’s second point. “And, again, it is not necessary for the board to investigate their previous representation.”
Regarding the question of hardship, Baumgardner said that the precedent cited by the zoning administrator did not apply. “There are definite marshy conditions here,” he said. ‘These people could not get their plans in a final form until they they took the charAuthority
May
BorrowMillion
82.4%