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 4 · column 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
While the Worleys contended that the language of the ordinance resulted in arbitrary actions taken by the Architectural Review Board because of vagueness and a lack of standards, the judge wrote that the “essence of the problem is not the wording of the statute, vague though it may be, but in its application.
“If in fact, areas of the Town are not truly worthy of historic preservation as defined by the Enabling Statute, then the Ordinance is void for that reason alone.”
On the issue of whether building materials can create architectural incompatibility, the judge said he has received “no evidence” on that issue. *
“In order to reach a decision that a variance in materials can make a structure architecturally incompatible with existing structures, the court as a non- expert will need to hear from an expert in the field of architecture. . . .”
Hank Day, who represents the Town of Washington in the case, could not be reached for comment on the judge’s opinion.
David Konick, who represents the Worleys, said, “Given the fact that summary judgment is rarely granted, we are generally pleased with the judge’s decision.”
95.6%