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 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
an appraised or assessed value in the county’s recently completed 100 percent fair market value assessment.
Davis maintains that issuance of the variance and special use permit causes “substantial detriment” to adjacent properties while changing and severely damaging the character of both the floodplain and the adjacent residential business districts.
The former commonwealth’s attorney who played an instrumental part in drafting the county’s ordinances maintains that members of the BZA individually and jointly acted in bad faith and therefore should be required to pay the costs of the court proceedings.
In a response filed June 13, Carson Johnson denies all of Davis’ allegations and claims that the special use permit and variance were issued in accord with both local and state laws.
Charlie Barrell, attorney for the BZA in the case, added a second denial in pleadings filed June 19 and noted that the BZA had interpreted the zoning ordinance as to not require a variance of floodplain provisions for the use proposed by Johnson.
To date, a hearing of the case by Circuit Court Judge Shore Robertson has not been set.
*
93.2%