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 16 · column 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
By LOU HATTER
Rappahannock News Staff Writer
Washington's Architectural Review Board approved an application from The Inn at Little Washington to remove a picket fence on the boundary between its property and the Rappahannock County Library.
Laurie Matthews, who spoke on behalf of The Inn, brought along one of the badly decayed pickets to illustrate the dilapidated condition of the fence. “It is an eyesore and a hazard,” she told the board.
Chairman Carol Miller suggested that the fence be replaced with a new one, but Ms. Matthews said The Inn's ow ners had no plans to do that. "Patrick (Chef Patrick O’Connell) isn’t down on fences, just ones that are falling down,” she said.
Mrs. Miller cited the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Restoration which state that fences and other features which are too deteriorated to salvage be replaced with similar ones. ,, The Rev. Jennings Hobson III urged the board to “consider this in a different context than in that book. I’m very happy with the things (The Inn) has done to remove other nasty stuff. You’ve got to look at this as a whole.”
ARB member Evelyn Willis said she disagreed that the fence was a significant feature. “The way I read it these are strictly guidelines. Even when the fence wTas first constructed it was not terribly significant. I don’t want to set a precedent for fence removal, but this one is not significant.
“It is not beautiful from the front or the back ... I agree with Rev. Hobson,” Mrs. Willis concluded.
“It’s not sloppy if it’s replaced with a new one,” Mrs. Miller said.
“Even if they replace it, it is still strange to see one fence not connected to anything,” Mrs. Willis replied.
The ARB gave^ its unanimous consent to removal of the fence.
C.E. “Skippy” Giles got the ARB’s permission to put a wooden barrier in front of the heat pumps behind the former Washington Cash Store building, but not before questions were raised.
Mr. Giles told the board he had discovered that the barrier was required by the building code to prevent cars from hitting the heat pumps. All that the code requires, he said, is a board or pipe between the parking lot and the heat pumps.
Mrs. Willis asked if it would be possible to use lattice-work or vertical pickets.
Mr. Giles replied that the heat pumps require air circulation to operate properly, and that he was financially limited in his options. “I could put up a metal pipe in front of each one to satisfy the ordinance, but I didn’t think much of putting up a metal pipe.”
Chairman Miller replied, “That might be OK with the zoning ordinance, but not with the historic district ordinance.”
Mrs. Willis added that she had a problem with establishing a precedent for allowing the building code to be satisfied with such a solution. “Part of the ordinance is to keep the
85.7%