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 2 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
ber 26 meeting, and that therefore further information could not be accepted.
Bird denies in the Return that: The decision on September 26 was arbitrary and capricious, that the decision was contrary to the weight of the evidence, that an erroneous view of the law was incorporated in the decision, that the board had no jurisdiction to review the opinion of Zoning Administrator David Konick, that the appeal filed by Roger and Diane Kidwell which led to the decision was insufficient in law, that the board erred in not maintaining a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Quash filed by Baumgardner, and that the board took into account evidence not legally pertinent to the case.
Bird states in the Return that some pertinent facts were not included in the Saltonstall writ. These facts deal with the background of the case, and include information on Saltonstall’s original application for a special use permit in August of 1983. The application was denied due to what the board deemed to be the duplex nature of the building, which placed the building in violation of the single-family provision in a conservation district.
Saltonstall built the house in the winter of 1983-84 after receiving permission from Konick. Bird states in the return that Konick was in error when he wrote a letter on July 5 to the Kidwells explaining that the house was
r
90.6%