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 7 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
vistas.” Bird told the two their remarks were out of order.
Finally the end of the meeting was in sight with a final request from M.L. McBride, Front Royal, representing Centel Telephone Company. McBride had been told at the August BZA meeting that Centel could leave its concrete pad in place near the comer of Routes 522 and 729 if the company could provide letters from an engineer saying the pad could be moved if necessary and from the highway department saying it would not constitute a visual obstruction if used for a community service equipment cabinet.
The reason for the first letter stemmed from the continuing “when is a structure a building?” discussion during which the BZA approved a service cabinet for C&P but rejected a similar one for Centel. Bird had told Centel the decision could be reversed if the company offered the letters showing the cases to be the same.
Centel’s engineer said the concrete pad had a “theoretical weight” of 9.5 tons and could easily be moved if necessary with a small crane. Since the pad could be moved, the BZA would not define it as a structure. Thus, the company would not need a varience, but only a special use permit.
But then Konick questioned whether the board could reverse itself without advertising the case for additional public hearing.
Bird told McBride he would have to reapply and have the case reconsidered in public hearing. McBride replied that he had come to Washington to re-apply on the day following the August meeting and was told by Konick that it was not necessary. Konick had said that he understood the board had told him then that it would not be necessary to
94.6%