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 1 · column 7 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
feet from the Stuckey’s property line and joined to the existing facility by a breezeway.
DeMent and his attorney Waugh Crigler along with the Stuckeys and their legal counsel were all present at last Thursday’s meeting.
Crigler asked if the 50 foot setback requirement was added by the BZA, rather than being stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance.
“We issued only one variance and that was for construction,” responded BZA member Hal Forward. He added that the BZA had tried to go along with DeMent and had “bent over backwards to let him build.”
“We issued a variance for improvements to an existing structure," Gardiner agreed.
BZA member Manwaring characterized the “two by four” nailed up between the two buildings as “ridiculous” in so far as satisfying ordinance requirements that the new building be an extension of the existing structure.
Crigler explained that the two by four in itself was not intended to be the breezeway called for in the permits but only indicated where the breezeway would be constructed. “He (DeMent) is going to put a breezeway in there.”
“It’s not complete,” added DeMent. “My intention is to put there exactly what I was supposed to put there.”
Forward commented that the variance was issued by the BZA only after assurances had been received from DeMent that none of the neighboring property owners objected to construction proposals. He noted that apparently objections did exist, at least from the Stuckeys.
Maurice Biddle, attorney for the Stuckeys, suggested that his clients be allowed to tell the Board exactly what had transpired between them and DeMent.
94.7%