Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA197100015 Application 1971-12-16 (r. ftUtLzl1T tlii1 of gib irtia IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE „\\\ SUBPOENA. IN CHANCERY AA L;) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The party upon whom this writ and the attached paper are served is hereby notified that unless within twenty-one (21) days after such service, response is made by filing in the Clerk's Office of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be taken as admitted and the court may enter a decree against such party, without further notice, either by default or after hearing evidence. Appearance in person is not required by this subpoena. Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this 3 0 day ofNnv_ , 19_21 Q:111, 17?A aL&CLEP*' William A. Perkins Jr. p, q. court Square Bldg. Charlottesville, Va. (OFFICE ADDRESS) Page 73 October 12 , 1971 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , October 12 , 1971 , at 5 : 30 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room , with the following members present : Messrs : Savory Amato , Chairman , Herbert Pickford , Vice-Chairman , E . H . Bain , and W. P . Heath . Mr. Harry Brown was absent due to an accident and is now in Martha Jeffer- son Hospital . The Chairman established a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 14 , 1971 meeting were read and approved as submitted . 1 . VA-71 -09 . John B . Sims . Applicant requests a variance of 2 . 7 feet and 1 . 6 feet respectively , from the corners of this lot from the minimum front setback of 30 feet for a dwelling . Property is described as Tax Map 61M , Block 7 , Section 2 , Lot 6, Berkeley Subdivision. Charlottesville Magisterial District . Applicant was not present . This variance was forwarded to the end of the docket. 2 . VA-71 -14 . Francis Nardi . Applicant requests a variance of 4 feet from the minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet in an R-1 Residential zone . Property is described as County Tax Map 60A , Lot 14 , Block D , Section 2 , and is located in the' Hessian Hills Subdivision off Barracks Road . Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The staff informed the Board that Mr. Nardi ' s application was re-advertised to reflect a difference in the variance requested , from the original two feet to four feet. This was to allow a minimum side yard requirement of six feet , rather than the required ten feet in a R-1 Residential zone . The Board had previously discussed this request and saw no need to further discuss the subject . Mr. Nardi had nothing new to ' add , other than to reiterate that the major cause for this request was the topography of the land. Mr. Herbert Pickford Page 74 { moved that this request be granted as submitted . This was seconded by Mr. Bain and Mr. Heath and carried unanimously . 3. VA-71 -15 . Randolph D. & Vivian W . Wade . Applicants request that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be reviewed in his interpretation of rear-yard setback require- ments for R-3 Residential zones . Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17 . Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The staff presented its report to the Board on this request. The Zoning Administrator explained the main reason for this request was that the counsel for Mr. Wade requested a review of the decision of the Administrator in his interpretation of the rear yard setback requirements for a R-3 Residential zone . (Please note that it was stated as R-2 in a letter from Mr. Richard Barrick , dated September 14 , 1971 , to the property owners . ) A zoning map was presented in evidence by the staff showing the location of this pro ertY in relation to adjoining properties . Mr. Barrick , speaking on behalf of the Wades , reaffirmed their position . He noted that even though the ordinance stated in Section 6-5-2 , Page 22 , that each main structure should have a rear yard of 25 feet or more , that this was in direct conflict with Section 16-94-2 , Page 70 which states that the rear of a building is an open , unoccupied space on the same lot as a building between the rear line of the building (ex- cluding steps ) and the rear line of the lot and extending the full width of the lot . He stated that it was quite obvious that the rear of the building in this case should be designated as the side { of the building . Mr. Wade , speaking on his own behalf submitted evidence to the Board that these buildings in question would not have a rear, so to speak , but would have 3 sides and 1 front . Page 75 He made mention of the fact that if these buildings were put ten feet from the property line that the side of the building facing that property line would have no windows or doors , and there would q be no play areas , trash containers , or accessory storage uses t provided there . Speaking for those citizens in opposition was Mr. Bill Perkins , attorney for Mr . Henry H . Bell and others . Mr. Perkins in his opening remarks agreed with the decision of the Zonin g Administrator and his interpretation of the ordinance . He stated that no building in reality has a front and sides but no rear . He brought out the point that Section 6-5-2 , pretaining to rear setbacks , was entirely applicable in this case ; and that the rear property lines were actually determined by the position in which the building is chosen to be placed by the developer. Mr. Perkins stated that this was even more substantiated by the fact that this particular lot had six different rear lines that could each be determined as a rear property line . He said that since Mr. Wade had chosen to back this particular building up to this partic- ular property line that it should conform to the 25 foot setback requirement . This pertinent discussion continued for a goodly time with the following results , Mr. Amato , on behalf of the Board , said that since VA-71 -16* concerned a request for a variance of 15 feet if VA-71 -15 were not approved , that it was his feeling that the Board should consider these two requests jointly . This was the consenus of the members present . A motion was made by Mr. Pickford that the Board take both variance 15 and 16 under advisement and return with a decision at the November 9 , 1971 meeting . This was seconded by Mr . Heath and carried unanimously. Page 76 ( *4. VA-71 -16 . Randolph D. & Vivian W. Wade . Applicants request a variance of 15 feet from the minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet as required in a R-3 Residential zone. Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17, Jack Jouett Magisterial District . 5. VA-71 -17. Randolph D . & Vivian . W. Wade . Applicants request a variance of 4 . 12 feet from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet in an R-3 Residential zone . Property is located on the west side of Surrey Road south of Bennington Road and is described as County Tax Map 61D , Lot 14A , Block A , Section 4 of the Canterbury Hills Subdivision , Jack Jouett Magisterial District . The staff made its report on the variance request. Mr. Barrick , who also represented the .Wades in this application explained the problem of the house being built, too close to the property line . The members of the Board discussed this briefly and accepted a motion by Mr. Pickford to approve this request. It was seconded by Mr. Bain and carried unanimously. C 6 . VA-71 -18 . Randolph D. & Vivian W. Wade . Applicants pp s request a variance of 1 foot from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet in an R-3 Residential zone . Property is located on the east side of Smithfield Road southeast of Chaucer Road and is described as County Tax Map 60D , Lot 29 , Block A , Section 4 , Canterbury Hills Subdivision . Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The staff made its report and explained to the Board the plight of the builder in this situation also. Mr. Barrick again representing Mr. Wade , explained the reasons for this request. The Board , in a very brief discussion , found this request also to be in order. Mr. Bain moved that it be approved as submitted . It was seconded by Mr. Heath and carried unanimously. The Chairman again called for anyone from the public to be heard on the J . B . Sims request , VA-71 -09 . No one was present . ( Mr. Pickford moved that this request be dismissed without pre- judice . This was seconded by Mr. Bain . Motion carried unanimously. Page 77 There being no more public hearings , the Board conducted a short private session on VA-71 -15 . and VA-71 -16 . It was decided that the Board would meet for luncheon on October 19 , 1971 at 12 : 30 P.M. at the Monticello . Hotel to discuss the decision that it would make on these requests . The Zoning Adminis- trator was asked to make proper arrangements . It was also noted that Mr. Brown , who is in the hospital , would appreciate members of the Board paying him a visit . There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned . Secretary Page 78 November 9 , 1971 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , November 9 , 1971 , at 5 : 30 P . M. , in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, with the following mem- bers present : Messrs : Amato , Pickford , Bain , and Heath . Mr . Brown , who is still in Martha Jefferson Hospital , was absent . The Chairman established a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 12 , 1971 , meeting were read and approved as submitted. VA-71 -19 . Claude W. Cotton . Applicant requests a variance of 20 feet beyond the maximum permitted hieght of a sign of 30 feet to allow a sign 50 feet in height ; and. a variance of 20 feet from the minimum setback of 30 feet for a sign . These requests are for a sign in a B-1 Business zone and located on property described as County Tax Map 45C , Parcel lA on Route 29 North at Woodbrook Drive . Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Cotton spoke first , giving his reason for requesting a ( variance of height and setback . He stated that visibility was limited for both northbound and southbound traffic and stated that he considered this to be a true hardship . He also stated that a barrier of trees has been maintained around the Woodbrook Subdivision in order to protect those residents from the sight pollution of this type sign . Mr. Amato then asked for comments from citizens on this matter. Mr. Ray Smith of Woodbrook Subdivision spoke against . He said that this sign would be visible from most residential areas in Woodbrook and he could see no reason why a sign of this size and height would be required . He commented that no signs in this immediate area , from Route 631 to Woodbrookk were any higher than the maximum allowed of 30 feet . He also noted that this sign , which is planned to be 50 feet in height is higher than any structure in Woodbrook . Page 79 Speaking next was Mr. Tom Daughtery of Texaco , who spoke in support and was representing Texaco ' s District Sales Manager. He stated that a 50-foot sign was not high at all considering the immediate need . He said that business would be hurt if the module sign was not permitted. He explained that this would be an illum- inated sign (self contained lighting ) and that it would be so aligned to the Woodbrook Subdivision that it would be in a perpen- dicular line . Mr. John Topper of Woodbrook Subdivision spoke against. He stated that he owns the house closest to this proposed sign , and that the illumination would be too much for him to put up with . He also stated that this would destroy his privacy as a resident of Woodbrook . Mr. William Perkins , loc al attorney , spoke against. Mr. Perkins stated that the Supervisors of Albemarle County had just recently passed a sign ordinance. He said that if this sign is approved "flood gates are open to others " Mr. Perkins also stated that Texaco was not fulfilling their responsibility to the community , and that the applicant and Texaco knew that Albemarle County had a sign ordinance to restrict these signs , and that " this sign if approved , would be an utter breach of the faith of the citizens of the County . " The staff was then asked its opinion of the request. The staff stated that the sign would not be ,compatible with the existing residential subdivision . Allowing this proposal would be an erosion of the sign ordinance and that no signs of this height are in this entire area . 1 Page 80 The public hearing was then closed . The Board took up discus- sion of this matter. Mr. Amato said that he just could not see that this request was necessary , 50 feet for a sign of this nature was too high . Mr. Pickford stated that he could see no clear hardship in this case . Mr. Pickford then moved to deny the request for both height and setback . Mr. Heath seconded the motion . The vote was as follows : Heath - yes ; Pickford - yes ; Bain - yes ; Amato - no . Mr. Amato stated that his reason was) not for denying the request for a setback , but only for height. The motion carr ied. The request was denied . At this time , the Chairman called for old business . VA-71 -15 . Randolph D . & Vivian W. Wade . Applicants request that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be reviewed in his interpretation of rear yard setback requirements for R-3 Residential zones . Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17. Jack Jouett Magisterial District . Mr. Amato announced that the Board of Zoning Appeals was pre- pared to make a decision on the request . He stated that the Board had considered this thoroughly and had met the week before at a special closed meeting to consider this request . Mr. Pickford stated that he had reviewed the Subdivision Ordinance and in view of what it states , that if two or more ordinances are to be used for one item , that the most restrictive section or ordinance applies . He said that depending on the manner in which you interpret the Zoning Ordinance , anyone can turn a home or building to any direc- tion on any particular piece of property . He stated , "The Zoning Ordinance should be amended . " With no further discussion , Mr. Pickford moved that the Board ( should overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator as he ruled on this variance request . This motion was seconded by Mr. ti ' Page 81 Heath . The vote was as follows : Heath - yes ; Amato - yes ; Pickford - yes ; Bain - no . VA-71 -16 . Randolph D. & Vivian W. Wade . Applicants request a variance of 15 feet from the minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet as required in a R-3 Residential zone . Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as . County Tax Map 1 60A , Parcel 17. Jack Jouett Magisterial District . Mr. Amato suggested that the Board allow the applicant to withdraw this request for a variance of the setback requirement Pk+ \ without prejudice . The applicant ' s counsel , Mr . Barrick , agreed . VA-71 -20. William E . Bell . Applicant requests a variance of 10 feet from the minimum rear yard requirement of 50 feet and a 7 foot variance from the minimum front setback require- ment of 30 feet . Property is zoned B-1 Business and abuts R-3 Residential zoning . Property is described as County Tax Map 60F , Parcel 1 , and is located on Hydraulic Road at the entrance to Georgetown Green . Charlottesville Magisterial District . Mr. Bell and Mr. Max Evans , Landscape Planner, explained their reasons for needing this request. They explained that the Highway Department would be requiring , in the future , additional right- of-way in the front of thertr lot . When this is done , it would require that the building be set back farther in order to have adequate parking in the front and rear. Mr. Evans stated that if the building were the full 30 feet back from the nearest highway right-of-way line , that ample parking and turning space in the rear of their proposed building would not be sufficient . Due to the narrowness of this lot he had requested a variance on both sides so that they could make the best use .of all space around the two buildings . 1 Mr. Amato said that as far as he was concerned he did not know when the Highway Department would widen or do any work to improve Hydraulic Road . Mr. Pickford made a motion to approve this request . It ' was seconded by Mr. Bain and carried . unanimously . Page 82 VA-71 -21 . Special Exception . Alberene Stone - A Division of Georgia Marble Company . Applicant requests a special exception for three subdivisions - Quality Row , Stump Town , and Goldmine ; to allow lots smaller than the minimum required lot size of 2. 0 acres in an A-1 Agriculture zone . These lots range from 0. 47 acres to 1 . 86 acres , and are located as follows : Quality Row on Route 719 , described as Tax Map 111 , portion of parcel 8; Stump Town on Route 792 , described as Tax Map 111 , portion of parcel 8; Goldmine off Routes 800 & 808 , described as Tax Map 126 , parcel 31 . The staff gave its report along with location maps . Thomas Michie , attorney for Alberene Stone , explained the situation as it pretains to these three subdivisions . He stated that these build- ings were constructed some 60 to 70 years ago on state secondary roads with some being located on _ private roads at the end of these state roads . Mr. Michie said that some lots in Stump Town do not touch state road rights-of-way . He also mentioned the fact that the plats he had submitted were as accurate as possible . He said that if this Special Exception were to be granted that certified plats would be drawn up immediately , placing 50-foot rights -of-way in front of those houses were private roads now exist. Speaking first were Mr. and Mrs . John Morris , residents of Quality Row .. They stated that they had been living there for 60 years and that they would appreciate the Board approving this variance . to allow them to buy their lot . Julia Jones , an adjoining property owner, said that she was only there to observe this meeting . There were some 15 to 20 residents of these three subdivisions present. Mr. Amato stated that he would approve this Special Exception , if a condition were set that would require any building that was substantially destroyed by fire flood or similiar disaster to be re-- built up to standard in so far as the water and septic systems are Page 83 concerned . This was agreed upon by the applicant . Mr. Heath moved to grant this request as stated with the following conditions : 1 . That all roads other than state roads have a 50-foot right- of-way ; 2 . That running water and septic systems be added if up to 75% of any building is destroyed (see Section 10-7-1 , Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance) ; 3. THESE CONDITIONS WILL BE STIPULATED ON SUBDIVISION PLATS BEING DRAWN UP . This motion was seconded by Mr. Bain . The motion was carried unanimously . There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned . Secretary Page 84 December 14 , 1971 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , December 14 , 1971 , at 5 : 30 P . M. , in the Board of Supervisors meeting room , with the following mem- bers present : Messrs : Savory Amato , Chairman ; Herbert Pickford , Vice-Chairman ; E . H . Bain ; and W . P . Heath ; and Harry Brown . The Chairman established a quorum was present . The minutes of the November 9 , 1971 meeting were read and approved as submitted . 1 . VA-71 -20 . William E . Bell . Applicant requests a variance of 10 feet from the minimum rear yard requirement of 50 feet, and a 7 foot variance from the minimum front. setback require- ment of 30 feet. Property is zoned B-1 Business and abuts R-3 Residential zoning . Property is described as County Tax Map 60F , Parcel 1 , and is located on Hydraulic Road at the entrance to Georgetown Green . Charlottesville Magisterial District . The staff again gave a brief summation of the request and explained the reason for needing a rehearing . It was noted that all property owners had not been notfied by certified mail prior to the first hearing in November. This rehearing was then scheduled in order to make the approval of the Board legally correct . The only person who spoke was Mr. A. L . Scott , whose questions were only to clarify positions . It was moved by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Pickford to approve the variance as requested . The vote was unanimous . 2 . VA-71 -23 . H . H . Maxmore & Co . by H . H . Tiffany . Applicant requests a variance of 4 1 /2 feet from the minimum setback of 30 feet in an A-1 Agriculture zone . Property is located on the east side of Route 691 , 0. 3 mile north of its inter- section with Route 690 and the Breenwood Post Office ; and is described as County Tax Map 54 , Parcel 52B-4. White Hall Magisterial District. The staff gave its report explaining the reasons for Mr. Tiffany ' s requesting a variance be granted in regard to setback . Mr. Tom Shumate spoke and explained why the house was built in the location Page 85 it was . Mr. J . P . Haden , contractor , accepted responsibility along with Mr. Shumate for the mistake . It seems that road ' curvature at the lot location caused .a misalignment of the front setback . On a motion by Mr. Bain and second by Mr. Brown , the variance was granted as requested . The motion carried unanimously . 3 . VA-71 -24 . Randolph D. and Vivian W . Wade . Applicants request a variance of 15 feet from the minimum rear yard setback in an R-3 Residential zone . Applicant also requests a special exception to the regulations of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of build- ings according to the variance requested . Property is located on Route 656 (Georgetown Road) 0 . 1 mile north of its inter- section with Route 654 (Barracks Road) and is described as County Tax Map 60-A , Parcel 17 . Jack Jouett Magisterial District . 4 The staff explained to the Board that an order had been entered by Judge Berry to hear information pretaining to this variance request , and VA-71 -15 , an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator. (See minutes of October 12 and November 9 , 1971 ) . The staff noted that at its previous meeting the Board had ruled in favor of R. D . and Vivian W . Wade and had overturned a decision of the Zoning Administrator in reference to rear yard setback require- ments in R-3 Residential zoning . This decision of the Board is being appealed by Mr. William A. Perkins , on behalf of Henry H . and Verlease J . Bell . It was the opinion of the staff that since the Board ' s ruling to overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator had been challenged , that no further activity or action should be taken until Judge David Berry had a chance to review the case . The Board then heard from the public . Mr. Perkins , speaking on behalf of the Bells explained why he agreed with the staff and requested the Board not to hear this variance request . Mr. Richard Barrick , attorney for the Wades , informed the Board that he had reviewed the entire process and explained that he had been allowed to withdraw his prior request , VA-71 -16 without Page 86 prejudice . Mr. Barrick stated that .in his opinion , "The Board of ( Zoning Appeals is a quasi -judicial body which can grant relief to an applicant on the grounds that a good case is submitted to you as a Board: " F Mr. Amato questioned the consistency of this request if the ( judge rules the Board was proper in granting a variance . Mr. Amato also said in general terms that if the judge rules against the Board of Zoning Appeals , the Board would have acted before the judge could take action . Both sides again gave opinions and explanations to support their requests . Mr. Barrick said .that a quick decision would be needed , R. D. Wade had to move men from one project to the next and time wasted was wasted money . Mr. Amato then said that he felt the Board should hold this ( matter in abeyance until Judge Berry had acted on the first request . . Mr. Bain then moved that the Board hold . VA-t1 -24 in abeyance until Judge Berry could rule on the original request VA-71 -15 . This was seconded by Mr. Heath . The motion carried unanimously . There being no further. business the meeting was adjourned . • Secretary . re * Clarification of R. D . and Vivian W . Wade ' s requests . R. D. and Vivian W . Wade requested . the Board of Zoning Appeals to overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator in regard to the rear yard setback requirements in an R-3 Residential zone . At the same time this request was filed ( VA-71 -15) another application was made for a variance ( VA-71 -16 ) in the rear yard setback require- ment , in case the Board upheld the decison of the Zoning Administrator. ( When the Board ruled in favor of the Wades in VA-71 -15 , a petition was filed in Circuit Court by Mr. William Perkins , Jr. to overturn the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals . Simultaneously , the Wades filed a second application for a variance in the rear yard Page 87 requirement for an R-3 Residential zone (VA-71 -24) , to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals before Judge Berry had an opportunity to rule on the decision of the Board on VA-71 -15 . The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that this latest request VA-71 -24 should be held in abeyance until the Circuit Court has made a ruling on the prey ious decision . VIRGINIA : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY HENRY Ho BELL and ) VERLEASE JACKSON BELL ) ) Petitioners , ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR WRIT ) OF CERTIORARI BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ) ) Respondent. ) Petitioners , by counsel, having tendered and filed Petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari to and for a review of final judgment and decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the County of Albemarle which became final on the 9th day of November , 1971 and by which certain interpretations were made of the zoning ordinance of the County of Albemarle allege prejudicial to Petitioners. Petitioners , by counsel, move this Court, upon the averments of said Petition to review all of the proceedings whereon and where- by said judgment and decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the County of Albemarle was made and entered. The Court, having examined said Petition doth sustain the prayer thereof and said motion and doth hereby award said writ. It appearing proper to do so, the Court doth order the Board of Zoning Appeals of the County of Albemarle to forthwith transmit to the Clerk of this Court, duly certified, the complete record of all the proceedings had before or considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals including all documents and papers and transcript of testimony, if any, taken, together with its findings of fact and decision thereon. It is further ordered that an attested copy of this order , in lieu of a formal writ of certiorari, including copies of the petition filed herein, be served upon Savory Amato, as Chairman of the aforesaid Board of Zoning Appeals and upon Randolph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade, the parties upon whose application the challenged action of said Board of Zoning Appeals was based. Enter : Date : JUDGE REQUESTED: Henry H. Bell and Velease Jackson Bell By Counsel William A. Perkins, Jr. Of Counsel for Plaintiffs -2- VIRGINIA : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY \\ HENRY H. BELL and ) VERLEASE JACKSON BELL V/Ir yPetitioners, ) v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) CERTIORARI BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ) ) Respondent. ) TO THE HONORABLE DAVID F. BERRY, JUDGE: In accordance with Section 11-7-1 of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully report to this Court: 1. At a regular meeting of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held on October 12 , 1971, Randolph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade, his wife, appealed a decision of the Zpning Administrator by interpretation of real-yard setback requirement within the R-3 Residential Zone. The Zoning Administrator having interpreted Section 6-5-2 of the Zoning Ordinance as requiring a 25 foot setback from property lines of the rear of any building to be located within the boundaries of a individual property. 2. The Zoning Board Appeals made no decision on October 12, 1971, however, the application for interpretation was taken under advisement. 3. At its meeting on November 9, 1971, by a vote of 3 to 1, the Board of Zoning Yppeals reversed the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 4. The Petitioners, property owners adjoining the property of Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade are aggrieved by the Board's decision. WHEREFORE, the Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully request the Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the Board of Zpning Appeals and for such other general relief as may be applicable. Respectfully submitted, HENRY H. BELL and VERLEASE JACKSON BELL By Counsel McGUIRE, WOODS & BATTLE Court Square ildin Ch rlo = ifle Vir ir,ia Y N_ William A. Perkins, Jr. Of Counsel for Petitioners -2-