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 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
at the February hearing to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision, but Mr. Stewart sought to air his grievance with an appeal of that decision to the Circuit Court.
In a decision wTitten on Sept. 23, Circuit Court Judge Parker noted that there are three issues in the case: 1, “Did the action of the ABC Board preempt the zoning ordinance of Rappahannock County and compel the County to authorize the sale of beer by Bardo?,” 2, “Is the Ordinance unconstitutional by denying equal protection to breweries as opposed to wineries,” and 3, “Has the ordinance been improperly applied by the Administrator in reference to Bardo.”
In answering questions one and two, the Court found that the County was not compelled by ABC Board action to authorize the sale of beer by Bardo and that the ordinance was not unconstitutional by denying equal protection to breweries as opposed to wineries. It did, however find in Bardo’s favor regarding question three.
Judge Parker wrote; The subject Ordinance is very brief and very plain. It permits processing, storing, and sales of agricultural products. The Administrator determined that making beer constituted an agricultural use for zoning purposes. Therefore, he can not discriminate now as to the kind of
91.4%