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 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Baumgardner, who sold the fiveacre lot to the Learning Center, told the BZA June 27 he supported the center’s request, but altering boundary fines would cause his 25-acre adjoining lot not to conform.
During the BZA meeting, Baumgardner presented legal arguments in favor of granting the variance, suggesting hardship could be shown.
Zoning administrator David Konick countered those legal arguments, saying hardship could not be shown to the extent required by law, and approval of the request would set a “bad precedent.”
Upon hearing both sides, the BZA decided the Planning Commission also should hear the legal arguments of Baumgardner and Konick.
Argues Convenience
The planning commissioners heard legal arguments during the special session.
Konick said the variance was sought as a matter of convenience, rather than necessity.
Building 150 feet from the rear property line, he said, would be less convenient in terms of future expansion and a play area. He insisted that state law prohibited granting of a variance under such conditions.
Konick argued financial burden was not the only determining factor in granting a variance. The applicant must show “hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience,” he said.
Hardship approaching confiscation must relate to an inability to do any
83.9%