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 2 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
it.” The engineers employed by Goode "gave us a mis-figure on land that wasn’t under 14 per cent,” said Miller. “They said it was less than two acres” when the actual figure is over nine acres.
Ongoing Litigation
Luke noted that two cases filed by Goode after the denial of his rezoning by the supervisors were still before the courts. He questioned whether it was proper for county government representatives to meet with the developer while the suits were continued.
“I’m not meeting with someone who’s suing me,” Fannon remarked.
Luke noted that the supervisors may not take action on Goode’s application for subdivision approval—the subject of a public hearing scheduled for Thursday, February 1—"while the case is in court.”
“We should go on and do what we think is right (despite the ongoing litigation) and let the courts rule,” Miller maintained. “If there’s no logical reason why it shouldn’t be done, the subdivision will be approved.”
(If the subdivision is approved after the supervisors’s public hearing on February 1, Goode’s suits contesting the denial of the required rezoning for his property would become mote well before the next hearing date on the cases scheduled for March 12.)
“We’ve got a logical reason (for concluding that Goode's proposed development doesn’t comply with the subdivision ordinance),” Fannon insisted.
94.1%