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 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Mr. Reynolds said that in his opinion, Mrs. Purnell was not an aggrieved party under the Historic District Ordinance, and did not have ,tbe right to appeal the ARB’s decision about the fountain.
He cited a zoning appeal case before the Virginia Supreme Court, decided in 1986, Virginia Beach Beautification Commission v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Virginia Beach, et al.. In this case, it was decided that an “aggrieved party” must be either one who has a pecuniary interest in the decision, or is an adjacent of adjoining property owner deemed to have (linages. ; Mr. Baumgardner, speaking for his client, Mrs. Purnell, said that the Town Council had rejected adopting a narrow definition of what an aggrieved party would be in the Historic District Ordinance. He said that his client lives on the periphery of the town of Washington, that she is a resident of Rappahannock County and that Washington is the county seat.
In a letter to his client, Mr. baumgardner said, “...as Virginia law makes clear, citizens of a county have a stake in the outcome of matters involving their county seat. You are certainly a party to the visual impact of the structure in question and you have articulated, in our recent conference, your strong support for the historic district program and your desire to protect American and Virginia history. These goals
89.9%