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 6 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
adding that he’d advised the callers to either speak at the BZA meeting or submit letters. He then read letters in oppostion to the permit request from Grace Sims and Mitzie Young into the record.
Noting the overwhelming opposition to the Chapmans’ proposal, Ronald Philiby questioned the BZA’s consideration of the permit application, even with conditions. He accused the BZA members of having “a predisposition to approve” the retreat house. “There shoiuld be no conditions. The conditions you impose are not going to satisfy anyone!”
“There’s a massive understanding of the BZA’s role,” countered Mr. Monahan. “We took an oath to uphold the law. Our job is to act under this ordinance...We may not even like what we’re doing but it must be in accord with the law,” he emphasized.
Mr. Philiby argued that the zoning ordinance is supposed to reflect the wishes of the county’s residents. “This ordinance doesn’t.”
“If you find that to be the case, then change the damn thing!” countered Mr. Monahan. “The supervisors say no commercial activity in a conservation district, and yet they’re getting ready to adopt a new ordinance that allows it!”
“We’re supposed to put blinders on...We’re not supposed to look at who the applicant is, what race they may be, what their heritage is, how much money they have,” said Mr. Kramer. The decisions reached by the BZA “are not something done by head count...They are supposed tq be based on the law,” he said.
Mr. Kramer acknowledged that the BZA may have created the wrong impression by speaking of “conditions” on the Chapmans’ application. What is being done, he said, is describing the application, stating the facts, defining the application.
Also clarifying a possibly erroneous impression, Supervisor Nelson Lane described the resolution sent to the BZA as “a guarded courtesy” at most “to give our interpretation of this loose wording.” He stressed that that the Board of Supervisors “respects its relationship with the BZA” and was in no way trying to influence the BZA’s decision.”
Recalling testimony from two previous sessions, the BZA members proceeded to “describe the use that has been applied for,” as Mr. Kramer put it. After listing all of the conditions and stipulations proferred by the Chapmans and hearing another list of suggested restrictions from A.Y. Stokes, the BZA members moved on to the four findings where the split decision on two effectively ruled out issuance of the permit.
“I very much appreciate the time and care given to our application by the Board of Zopning Appeals and the Planning Commission,” said Ted Chapman, gracious to the end, even after the vote to deny his application.
“I’d like to make sure you understand your appeal provisions under the code,” Mr. Monahan noted.
Mrs. Chapman , fighting back tears, nodded confirmation. “But as a practical matter, our contract is dead,” she concluded.
96.7%