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 6 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
The chairman recalled an instance in which a downtown bank sought a variance to add a drive-through win-' dow on its oddly shaped lot. The BZA denied the request on the grounds that the bank was already making effective use of the property. As with the Barrons’ variance application, the addition was desirable but not critical, Mr. Bird said. “You put your house right up against the setback limitation. You can’t show a hardship other than a self-imposed hardship.”
“Rightly or wrongly,” at its last meeting, the BZA granted a setback variance for a carport, Mrs. Luke recalled. In that case, she acknowledged, the house (built before the zoning ordinance was enacted) also failed to meet the setback limit while the carport infringed no further than the house. But there was no hardship approaching confiscation in that case, Mrs. Luke maintained, and yet the variance was approved.
“But the carport couldn’t have been built anywhere where it would have conformed (to the required setback),” the BZA chairman noted.
To put HIS addition where it would conform to the setback distance would cause economic hardship, Mr. Barron argued.
“Economic hardship is not the same hardship we’re dealing with in the law,” Mr. Bird replied.
With only Mrs. Luke voting in favor of the applicant, the BZA was not able to make the required finding that strict application of the ordinance would work undue hardship. By the same 4-1 split, the variance application was denied.
98.1%