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 6 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
stipulates a 75-foot setback.
Commissioner David Fannon seconded the motion.
Vote 3-2
Chairman A. Y. Stokes called for a vote.
Commissioners Newbill Miller, David Thornhill and Chairman Stokes voted against the motion; Commissioners Krebeer and Fannon voted in favor, Commissioner James Swindler abstained; Commissioner Charles “Pete” Estes did not vote. (Swindler is a member-representative of the BZA; Estes represents the board of supervisors.)
Stokes and Miller both cited precedent as a reason for their votes.
“I’m in sympathy with the application and want to accommodate them,” Stokes said. “Looking at it strictly from the way the ordinance is worded, hardship (must be shown).
“The architect testified the building could be changed in location to comply with the ordinance. The lot itself is not hardship.
“If we make exceptions, we open Pandora’s box,” Stokes continued. “You did it for them; you have to do it forme.”
“Unfortunately, we have to deal with the law that exists at the time it exists,” Miller said. “Under the proposed ordinance, it’s okay. But there’s no certainty when it will be passed.”
Disapproval of the motion as stated by Krebeer means the Planning Commission will return the application for a variance to the BZA without mak(Continued
on Page IN)
82.1%