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 18 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
makes the following allegations: that the use of the proposed site in the manner allowed by the permit “will be in conflict with the predominant character of the neighborhood,” which is now agricultural; that the use of the property will generate excessive traffic on Route 612 and on the Lozano property, which will have an adverse effect on “the peaceful use and enjoyment” of the Hall property. As a result, the Hall's property will decrease in value.
Count one also alleges 1) that construction of a church, parsonage, access road and sewage system will pose a pollution hazard to the Thornton River and improvements on the Hall property; 2) that the trustees of the church were not qualified to apply for a special use permit because they were not the owners of the Lozano property at the time the application was made or at the time the permit was approved; 3) that the BZA violated portions of the Virginia Code and the Rappahannock County Zoning Ordinance by considering.the application and holding a public hearing despite defects in the application procedure. The following breaches are listed in the suit:
1) The applicant did not submit a proper site plan and maps; 2) Public notice wasn’t given of the BZA’s intent to grant a variance; 3) The zoning administrator did not give a copy of the application, maps and plans to the planning commission prior to the public hearing; 4) Thus the suit alleges that the Halls were deprived of “their rights to procedural due process and equal protection of the law, since they were unable to examine the application...maps and other information prior to the public hearing, and were given no notice whatsoever of the BZA’s intent to authorize a variance.”
Counf one also alleges that the BZA, in approving a special use permit for a church and a parsonage, “authorized a more intensive use of the property than should have been approved.” The reason given is that in the past the BZA has consistently denied special use permit applications “for more than one dwelling on a lot if such lots were
93.4%