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 12 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 9) conflict with the predominant character of the neighborhood, was made unanimously.
The second finding is that the proposed use will not adversely affect the health and safety of persons residing in or working in the area. That finding was made unanimously.
Finding number three is that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or interests in the neighborhood, and was made unanimously.
The BZA did not make the fourth finding, that the proposed use would be in accord with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, by a vote of three to two. BZA members Monahan and Sharon Luke cast the two positive votes.
The votes hinged on each member’s interpretation of what a caretaker or watchman would be. “I view that as a caretaker is distinct from someone who simply lives there and has no connection with the business,” Monahan said. “I think certainly that the proprietor of the business is the person who takes care of the business and doesn’t necessarily have to be the guy who washes the windows or paints the walls, and that there is a lot of ambiguity here.”
Swindler and R-aiuer said that they could not make the fourth finding. Swindler said that he viewed a caretaker’s or watchman’s quarters as a place “to sit and have coffee or something,” but not a place to live in and sleep in. “I
81.5%