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 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Chapman’s application.
“But I will tell you that this board cannot override the BZA’s decision. Only the Circuit Court can do that.”
“You can’t tell the BZA what to do,” agreed Mr. Reynolds, but added that the supervisors could clarify their intent so as to resolve a question of interpretation of the ordinance’s provisions.
At the BZA’s hearings, “the public appeared and voiced objections” to the permit sought by the Chapmans, said Mr. Stokes. “The BZA has not taken that into consideration,” he said, adding that instead, the zoning board members were trying to interpret the ordinance for guidance on what they should do.
“So what you want us to say is that conservation zones are not intended for commercial use,” responded Supervisor J. Newbill Miller. “That was the intent when it was adopted,” said the Hampton District representative who was on the board in 1973 when the zoning ordinance was enacted.
“I’ve had a tremendous number of communications opposed to this,” said Supervisor Nelson Lane. “Sounds like it’s opening the door to commercial uses. I don’t think it’s proper to allow (the Chapmans’ retreat house).”
Mr. Miller added that the intent of the ski area amendments adopted in 1978 was to “protect conservation areas from commercial activity.”
“It’s a conservation district and that’s the way it should remain,” said Chairman Hubert Gilkey.
“Only the Board of Supervisors has the right to change zoning,” noted Supervisor Charles Estes, maintaining that issuing the special
97.1%