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 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
ii jivuu t » * i v • *■**»» nouncing that they would vote by “telephone poll,” they rather brought it to a vote without open discussion at a third hearing on whose agenda it did NOT appear!
Were they ashamed to have their voting witnessed? Indeed they should have been. Everyone knows though who voted how in a unanimous vote.
Why did the BZA bother with the charade of ten hours of testimony? The motion to deny appears to have been written in advance. It certainly reflects practically none of the testimony given. I was under the impression that the purpose of a public hearing is to determine the wishes of the constituency in order to act accordingly. By any objective view it would have to be said that there was division among the constituency.
There were valid points raised to both sides of the question. Most of the discussion was good, wholesome, and above-board. How then, can the BZA in good faith come out with a decision that is so adamantly one-sided that they not only deny the application, but also request that the planning commission "downzone” the property?
88.0%