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 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
to back rather than lined in a row, construction that "avoids a sense of congestion.” While refusal to grant the variance would not work a hardship on Jenkins, he maintained, it would produce a hardship for Farrar, current owner of the property.
Addressing whether Jenkins’ application meets the variance criteria, James Marshall, who lives near the ‘lots, noted that the area where the lot is located has a "notoriously low" water table that has resulted in numerous well failures. He described the area as "substantially agricultural" where no new structures have been built in the past 70 to 80 years. The neighborhood also has a sewer problem, he said, and the lot is served by a gravel road that the Highway Department is already unable to maintain properly with current traffic levels.
He questioned whether the grandfather clause would apply at all in this case since it is designed to protect the vested interests of property owners at the time an ordinance is adopted, not the profit margin of someone who knowlingly buys an unbuildable lot years later.
Marshall also maintained that hardship for variance purposes applies to owners of record. Hardship can’t be claimed, he said, if such hardship is self-inflicted or entered into voluntarily.
Bird noted that the zoning ordinance allows for one single family dwelling to be built on each lot of record that existed when the ordinance was adopted, provided health department requirements are satisfied.
In response, Jenkins presented health department permits for well and septic field.
Adm. Josef Gardiner described the situation as a ploy to open the seven lots of Route 626 to development and proopsed that the variance application be denied.
89.8%