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 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
50 feet. However, this is not set out in absolutes on the permit.
By contrast, the building permit issued to DeMent is very precise and the information included on it appears to be directly at odds with contentions made by the BZA that DeMent is in violation. H he’s violating something, it’s not the conditions of his building permit.
Hie permit states that the new structure is to be located 20 feet from the Stuckey’s property line and joined to the existing facility by a breezeway, 24 feet by 12 feet. It also carries a hand written notation that states “this permit is issued in consonance with the decision made by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 14.’’
The Zoning Administrator may be right—the special use permit, vague as it appears to be, may take precedence over the subsequently issued building permit with its very precise conditions. However, the issue isn’t going to be settled outside of court—either with the BZA as complaintant in a suit against DeMent or as defendent in a suit brought by the adjoining property owners for violation of county ordinances in the issuance of the permit.
It looks like an expensive solution that might have been avoided by closer attention from both the Administrator’s office in issuing the building permit and from the BZA members in not seeking to stop construction of a building that was going up in clear violation of their intentions.
84.2%