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 9 · column 2 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Bowers said. “Since we did live in the building before (the fire), the ideal thing for us to do was to live in it again.”
Gregory Monahan, member of the BZA, asked for Konick’s opinion of the application. “In the original building application and all the discussions that led up to it not one word was mentioned about the living quarters, and again I am concerned that someone went ahead after they built it and after they got an occupancy permit and built whatever has been represented here...and moved in without applying for a building permit and occupancy permit, Konick said. “The only way that this came to my attention was through the Building Commissioner.”
Konick said that his interpretation of the caretaker or watchman phrase in the ordinance was that it was to mean something different from a single family residence. “They (the Board of Supervisors) made a distinction (in the ordinance), and I don't think that it’s one that doesn’t mean anything,” Konick said. He said that he recommended denial of the application because the Bowers’ apartment is a ‘principal residence within a commercial structure" and would not meet the criteria in the ordinance.
Kramer asked Bowers how much of an area the family had looked in for housing. Bowers said that she and her husband wanted to live within at least five miles of the business.
Jim Grehan, a resident in the area of the business, spoke in opposition to the special use permit. “I don’t think that there should be an apartment in that building because they’ve had one fire and there’s always a possibility of another," Grehan said.
Building Commissioner Emiel Smet, when asked by Monahan about the building code’s relation to the case, said that the use would be allowed by the code. Smet said that the fire marshal would have to determine if a fire wall or other safety precautions would be needed in the building.
The BZA then began considering the four findings that have to be made in order to grant a special use permit. The first finding, that the proposed use will not be hazardous or injurious to or
(Continued on Page 12)
79.2%