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 3 · column 4 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved

By SHARON KILPATRICK
Rappahannock N*w« Staff Writer
The Washington Architectural Review Board gave preliminary approval for Fredette Eagle to build an artists’ studio across Wheeler Street from her house at the corner of Wheeler and Gay Streets.
The outside the building is identical to the house that she applied for at last month’s Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
That application for a variance from setback requirements was turned down on the basis that the house would be a more intensive use for the small lot than the ramshackle storage shed now on the property.
Mrs. Eagle brought to the ARB meeting a letter from John McCarthy, acting as town zoning administrator, saying that the studio would be allowed on the property as an accessory use to her house.
Mrs. Eagle had submitted changed plans for the interior of the building. The building will not contain a kitchen, and the bathroom will not have a shower or tub.
Mr. McCarthy’s letter said with those changes “the structure will no longer be classed as a dwelling unit.”
Mrs. Eagle also received permission from the ARB to demolish the shed. She agreed to come back to the ARB for final approval of the materials and colors used in the building. The building will be a twostory log cabin with a board and batten addition. Mr. McCarthy’s letter noted that it can have “a footprint” no larger than the shed.
When the ARB took up the application, member Wayne Haffler asked the others is they wanted to delay action until they heard from an expert on demolition in historic districts who is coming to talk to Town Council and the ARB in August.
“Have you seen this structure?” Mrs. Eagle’s attorney, Douglas Baumgardner, asked.
Member Robert Parrish commented, “I don’t think this ever was anything.”
Member Patrick O’Connell agreed. “In this case we have an eyesore and fire hazard, not a benefit,” he said. “It has no architectural merit or heritage.” Mr. O’Connell’s motion to approve the demolition passed unanimously.
93.9%