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 5 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
tract owner Roger Batchelder.
Further, the suit states, “the L0 notice was defective,” in that the appl. cation which was advertised for pnhli hearing was not the one which Haase presented to the council for cojv£a.* sideration. The original application was*; £ for a retail space of more than square feet, which was amended a' advertisement to one for less than square feet. The change meant that thj application was considered under a different sub-section of the zoning ordf- v - nance. '
By approving the amending applj- . ’ [ cation, the suit alleges, the town coun-‘ - cil failed to comply with its own ■ ordinance and the Code of Virginia;' ~ \ which requires readvertisement if a ■ substantive amendment is made to a * \ permit before or during the approval * 11 process. “Without the required read- t vertisement and a new public hearing. . . the council considered and adopted su1f the permit over the objections of the -ur < plaintiff and other residents,” it states. C • t -
“The plaintiff,” Dr. Krebser’s suit'* ,, * ’ alleges, “is a taxpayer of Rappahaifr,*v , nock County and is aggrieved by the-A'1 , decision of the Town Council” in isstbii*^ ■
>• iT
(See SUIT, p. 1*’c
76.0%