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 1 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page I) Commonwealth attorney George Davis—on behalf of the Supervisors—that the Ski Corporation had the right to do everything listed in its application WITHOUT a special use permit.
However, Penn did agree that the Supervisors were properly granted status to intervene in the suit. Before deciding on whether the BZA acted beyond its jurisdiction in considering the permit application, Penn asked each attorney if the use to which the Ski Corporation had put its property had been discontinued for a year. He received affirmative answers.
(The Ski area, in existence before adoption of the zoning ordinance, was considered a non-conforming use and as such, required no special permits. However, the ordinance stipulates in section 14-1-3 that any nonconforming use discontinued for one year shall be deemed abandoned and any subsequent use shall conform to the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance lists skiing, recreational resorts and commercial amusements as allowed with a special permit in a commercial zone.)
67.5%