“plainly intended” to allow the type of use proposed

“plainly intended” to allow the type of use proposed by Mr. Estes in Sperryville’s “built-up town area.”

“But once you start reading something into the ordinance, you go down a tricky path,” cautioned Sid Gottlieb, the zoning board’s representative from Stonewall-Hawthome District. The implication from the ordinance’s definition of multi-family dwelling is that the units must be in one building, he pointed out.

“Basically, this is a single family detached dwelling,” said BZA member Butch Zindel, adding that the ordinance doesn’t provide for a second single family unit on a lot zoned village commercial. ~ ~

“I feel your inclination to favor this application is in the right ball park,” Mr. Gottlieb told the county administrator. “I feel we should try to go along when an applicant wants to do something reasonable . . . But about the only guidance the judge gave me (upon appointment to the BZA) is that we’re not supposed to rewrite the ordinance. We’re supposed to interpret it strictly.”

In an earlier application, Chairman Bird recalled, a Flint Hill lot owner needed a variance from setback regulations for an addition to his house. The BZA determined the variance couldn’t be granted because the conditions encountered by the landowner were of a general and recurring nature. But in denying the variance, the BZA suggested an ordinance amendment to correct the problem, and the Board of Supervisors adopted that amendment. “Everything worked out right, but we had to go through the proper procedures,” said Mr. Bird, adding those same procedures should be followed in Mr. Estes’s case.

“This is an interpretation of intent,” countered Mr. McCarthy, noting that the Planning Commission had verified the ordinance’s intent as allowing the type of family apartment as proposed by Mr. Estes in Sperryville’s village

.' 1

See BZA, p. 13