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 18 · column 1 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Continued from page 1 vertisement for the BZA’s hearing on the Chapman’s application had incorrectly identified the property as being in an agricultural district. He noted that the retreat center use proposed by the Chapmans does not fit into a catogory allowed by the zoning regulations and so had also been incorrectly advertised as “church school/retreat house.”
Dr. Krebser said that, according to the county’s comprehensive plan, commercial establishments are to be located in village areas. “We certainly do not want to see a commercial establishment put in a conservation district.”
(In their presentation to both the BZA and the Planning Commission, the Chapmans acknowledged that they would charge a fee to guests at the retreat house, putting the enterprise in a commercial category. They noted, however, that the fees would only cover operating expenses and would not produce a profit.)
Mr. Stokes reported that at the two public hearings conducted by the BZA on the Chapman’s application, 100 percent of adjacent property owners were opposed with “sizeable opposition” coming as well from other county residents. If the Chapmans’ “commercial venture” is allowed in a conservation zone, he Maintained, it will set a precedent for allowing commercial development on all county land zoned conservation.
Asked for legal counsel, Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke declared he faced a conflict of interest with his parents neighboring landowners and the current owners of the property his clients and therefore could not offer advice on the
96.8%