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 3 · column 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
No Difference
“There's no substantial difference between this and the rezoning we denied last week, maintained Fannon. At the February 3 hearing on Dodson s rezoning request, no one but the applicant and his son appeared in favor. At Settle’s February 18 hearing, over 20 people raised their hands in support of his rezoning request. "I get the feeling that everyone’s here tonight because no one was at the other meeting," Fannon said.
Baumgardner asked if there is any other commercial property in the vicinity of Settle's land and was told Mills’ garage two miles away on the same road is the closest. The commonwealth's attorney^noted that the Mills rezoning approved by the planning commission in December is not an extension of an existing commercial zone as indicated by the commissioners whenever the question of precedent is raised. Mills store which adjoins the garage lot was never colored in commercial on the county's official zoning map and so was not zoned commercial when the ordinance was adopted in 1973. Therefore, according to Baumgardner, the store is a non-conforming commercial use in an agricultural zone, a condition that makes the Mills rezoning "spot zoning" rather than an extension of an already existing commercial zone. In December. Stephen Will, attorney for landowners adjoining Mills' property, raised this same point.
Does It Conform?
"It’s not who's for or who’s against (the Settle rezoning)." said commissioner Newbill Miller. "The basic question is does it conform to the ordinance."
88.4%