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 16 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Continued from page 3
Mr. Barron pointed out that the landowner adjoining the side where the addition is proposed has “no problem with the addition being that close to the lot line.” He added that the landowner is not willing to sell enough land to enable him to meet the 50-foot setback, as had been suggested by the Planning Commission.
“Is there a possibility of swapping land with the adjoining landowner?” asked James Swindler.
“We’re just talking about 50 little feet,” noted Mr. Monahan.
“It would be a boundary adjustment,” Mr. Swindler added.
“We suggest this to you for your consideration, should we fail to grant the variance,” the BZA chairman told the applicant.
Sharon Luke asked that Mr. Barron be provided with a copy of a letter regarding a zoning variance case sent the BZA by attorney David Konick. (See separate story.) After last month’s BZA meeting, when Mr. Barron’s application was first considered but tabled because only three members were present, “I was leaning towards granting the variance,” Mrs. Luke said. But after reading the letter, “I feel compelled not to grant the variance,” she added, asking Mr. Barron to read it himself and respond if he chose to do so.
Mr. Barron retired to the jury room to read while the BZA heard another case. “I don’t see a similarity,” he announced on his return. “Our case is not a case of preference. It would cause us an economic hardship to put the addition in another location.”
97.0%