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 1 · column 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Board member Peter Kramer disagreed, saying, “I think that she (Saltonstall) had an opportunity to be here at the hearing last time and make her points. The purpose of postponing the decision for a month was to allow us to study the information that had been given to us, and put it in some order.”
The board went into executive session before making its decision to discuss legal points with Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke. When the board returned to regular session. Chairman Lee Bird announced the board’s findings.
“First we discussed the jurisdictional question that was raised, and we asked whether there was a decision of the zoning administrator from which an appeal could be taken,” said Bird. “He (Luke) responded that Mr. Konick’s letter of July 5 does constitute a decision, and states that it does and offers the Kidwell’8 a chance to appeal.”
The Kidwell’s did appeal within the 30-day limit. On that basis, the board approved a motion that it did have jurisdiction in the case.
“The second question is the question of merits; whether the building that was built by Mrs. Saltonstall was a single family residence or a multi-family residence,” Bird said. Bird quoted Article 1-2 of the Rappahannock County Ordinance which states that a building has to be built and used in accordance with the rules listed for the district it is situated in. Saltonstall’s building is in a conservation district which prohibits multi-family dwellings.
“He (Luke) also found that the plans which Mrs. Saltonstall presented to the board in compliance with the special use permit stated the intent to have two families living in the building,” said Bird. “Those plans were disapproved on the basis of that intention, and the nature of the plans....” The
86.1%